He continued: ‘As it stands at present, the law is entirely in favour of the husband and oppressive to the wife. A man who may be drunken, immoral, vicious, and utterly brutalized, may place his wife, who seeks to live separately from him, in this cruel dilemma – “You shall either continue to live with me, or you shall be deprived of your children.” The wife, in such a case, has no redress. It may be notorious that she has just grounds for complaint, that it would be misery for her to live with her husband; it may be well known that she possesses her children’s sympathy and affection, and that the husband disregards his children, and is disregarded, if not disliked by them.

…

In the House of Lords, 30 July 1838, Lord Lyndhurston, moving the Bill, criticised the law as it now stood: 'The father of a chilld born in lawful wedlock was entitled to the entire and absolute control and custody of that child, and to exclude from any share in that control and custody the mother of that child. The mother might be the most virtuous woman that ever lived, amiable in her manners, fond and attached to her children; the father, on the other hand, might be profligate in character, brutal in manner, living in adultery, and yet would have the right under the existing law to the custody of the children of his marriage, to the exclusion of even access to them of his wife, their mother. Further than this, if the father availed himself of the law as it now stood, he might apply it to personal pecuniary objects, to the extortion of unjust concessions from the mother, and still have the right to bar her from all access to her children.

On England’s Tender Years laws, which gave women exclusive custody of children in a divorce under a given age. Please note that this was in the mid 19th century, and women couldn’t vote in England until the early 20th. Please note also the similarity in arguments to modern father’s rights advocates. Up until these laws were passed, men got exclusive custody in divorces. This was because they had sole legal responsibility for the children in the marriage.

In my role as an activist and advocate over the last ten years, I have encountered story after story detailing how women are unable to protect themselves or their children in custody cases where abuse is an issue, even if abuse is documented outside the arena of divorce. There seems to be a concerted effort by the family courts to gloss over the abuse, and respond as if it were only a custody, access, and/ or visitation issue, oblivious or indifferent to all the issues of protection.

Renee Beeker former Michigan Now President.

“Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm’s way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights’ of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.’ Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody–battered mothers should and would receive sole custody. "Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women’s advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces–ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won’t see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives.”

-Glenn Sacks in “Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert’ Against Shared Parenting Bill” (2006-11-28)

This accusation [of parental alienation] is made by abusive ex-husbands and is intended to cause the courts to disregard mothers’ claims of fathers’ physical or sexual abuse in an effort to gain the fathers’ full or joint custody. NOW Foundation is concerned that because of the alienation accusation known batterers and child abusers have been awarded custody; the numbers of cases involving dads in custody disputes abusing and murdering children is appalling. (See link below)

- “NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder” - NOW Foundation. The post linked to is just a list of dads who allegedly were responsible for killing their sons, including in one case where the kid committed suicide and was never charged. Oddly enough, the blog doesn’t allow “slander” of mothers, especially when they haven’t been charged. The blog claims that men are the primary abusers, and “proves” it by doing basically nothing but listing cases of abusive fathers, yet describing murdering mothers as “complex”.

Primary caregiver presumption would cut down on the abusive practice by the moneyed spouse (usually the husband) of coercing the non-moneyed spouse (usually the wife) to make monetary concessions rather than risk a custody battle before a biased court.

- “N.O.W. NY Speaks on Joint Custody Bill” - ANPCR

We found that 76 percent of respondents’ cases involved allegations of some kind of abuse by the father and that in 69 percent of those cases the offender was given unsupervised contact or custody.

…

The problem we have been struggling with does not have to do with these men; it has to do with the abusive men who use the court system to continue terrorizing their families. After all, what better way to further abuse a mother than by taking her children from her?

…

But CA NOW is committed to fighting for change until we win. Whether you are a parent, a psychologist, a lawyer, a judge, a journalist, an activist or a concerned citizen, we encourage you to get involved and to fight along side us as we work to ensure that our family court system never again strips a fit parent of her parental rights in favor of an abuser.

- American Organization The National Organization of Women Book “ Disorder In The Courts I” - PCDN

Note how they equate “allegations” with “incidents”. Note also how “abuser” is explicitly synonymous with “father” and “fit parent” with “mother”.

Of the five percent of custody cases that do involve courtroom battles, at least three quarters of them involve domestic violence. Abusers often use ongoing, costly litigation - seeking joint or sole custody - as a tactic to continue the abuse and to punish the mother for leaving.

… The people who advocate most strongly for mandatory joint custody laws are parents who do not want to pay child support. Child support payments are paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial one. Under mandatory joint custody laws, regardless of which parent actually ends up supervising and raising the children, there would be no non-custodial parent and neither parent would be required to pay child support. This outcome is certainly not in the best interests of the children.

- “Fathers’ Responsibilities Before Fathers’ Rights” NOW New York State July 29, 2006

Again, only men are abusers.

Affirmed by experts and leaders in the women’s movement, the existence of this crisis is verified by women in every state who report injustice in their family law cases, especially battered mothers trying to protect their children from abusive fathers who aggressively litigate against them, using family court to stalk, harass, punish, and impoverish their former partners and children. NOW recognizes this crisis for women and their children and seeks to address discrimination against women in family courts.

- NOW Florida

The Fathers Count Act could direct over $150 million in federal dollars to private organizations which have been leaders in the so-called men’s rights movement. For those of you not familiar with the term, it refers to loosely knit organizations which have sprung up in the wake of tougher enforcement of child support orders and whose goals are to remove physical custody from the mother and award custody to the father (thereby negating his child support obligations). Unfortunately, custody is sometimes awarded to parents who are documented batterers or child sexual abusers. The National Organization for Women has received (and continues to receive) thousands of letters and calls from women who have lost custody, often after blatant violations of due process, false allegations and biased testimony. …

Also, there is insufficient appreciation of the pervasive problem of domestic violence and question whether Congress, in promoting marriage (as the bill specifies), would place more women and children at risk. Right wing religious groups backing this bill have an agenda of promoting marriage at all costs, regardless of the risks some marriages would pose to the safety of women and children.

- NOW “Action Alert”, 1999-10-20, quoted in “N.O.W.’s Obvious Hatred Of Men And Fathers” - SPARC

NOW’s report sounds the alarm on women’s “loss of custody through gender bias” but the vacuity of this claim can be demonstrated by examining how rarely courts grant custody to fathers in contested cases.



For example, a Stanford study of 1,000 divorced couples selected at random found that divorcing mothers were awarded sole custody four times as often as divorcing fathers in contested custody cases. A study of all divorce-custody decrees in Arlington County, Virginia over an 18 month period found that no father was given sole or even joint custody unless the mother agreed to it. According to Frank Bishop, the former director of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, almost 95% of custody cases in Virginia were won by mothers.



An Ohio study published in Family Advocate found that fathers seeking sole custody obtain it in less than 10% of cases, and a Utah study conducted over 23 years found similar results. According to the 2000 Census Bureau report, mothers comprise 85% of all custodial parents.

- “Fathers Bear the Brunt of Gender Bias in Family Courts” - Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks (2002-08-19).

Michigan NOW opposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.

- “"Father’s Rights” Groups: Beware Their Real Agenda" Gloria Woods, President, Michigan NOW (1997). Emphasis mine.

But, hey, it’s just NOW that opposes joint custody, right? Only what claims to be the largest feminist organization in the US, with a half-million members, right?

Women remain the primary caregivers of children. Women are more likely to abandon professional and economic benefits in order to facilitate that relationship. When they separate or divorce, women are far more likely to end up in poverty than their former male partners. Women are often victims of spousal violence or abuse. Yet the legal system often ignores this reality. And without access to Legal Aid, women are unable to assert the rights that they do have.

- NAWL Canada - Custody and Access.

Oh, well, that was just one pa-

There is a real risk of gradually reverting back to a patriarchal model of male domination and female subordination in the family, in the name of the “best interests” of the children and the (formal) equality of the fathers. Making joint custody and shared parenting mandatory, enforcing a rule of “maximum contact” between father and children and imposing a “friendly parent rule” can all be used by abusive or dominating men to bolster their power over ex-wives, forcing them to remain in oppressive relationships. NAWL and other feminist organizations are asking the federal, provincial territorial governments to ensure that changes to family law be made not only in the best interests of children, but also that they not jeopardize the autonomy and equality interests of women in the family.

- NAWL “Custody and Access Alert” (2002-02-16)

Odd. That first sentence looks a lot like a Slippery Slope fallacy.

The funny thing is that current “Best Interests of the Child” policies almost inevitably give the mother de facto custody.

Similar reform in other jurisdictions has been shown to subject women to constant contact and negotiations with their ex-spouse, and to control and coercion by those men who wish to use the law and the legal system as a tool for woman abuse. In addition, presumptions in favour of maximum contact and ongoing parental responsibility often expose children to situations that are not in their best interest, and may actually be detrimental or even dangerous.

- NAWL “Where is the Government Going on Custody and Access?” (2002-10-16)

Well, that’s just American and Canadian cult-

As the Israel government is now recognizing that divorced fathers and their children deserve equal rights as divorced women, a militant feminist conference at the Rackman Center in Bar Ilan University has caused a fury in Israel. The anti-male conference was designed to sabotage parental equality and indoctrinate social workers to treat all men and fathers in divorce or separation as unfit or dangerous parents.

- “ As Israel Amends Custody Law, Fathers Protest Feminist Conference at Bar Ilan University” - Israel News Agency (2012-01-08)

The argument against allowing paternity testing in France is directly opposed to the argument for allowing it almost everywhere else. While French Authorities believe that paternity testing can cause friction within families, some fathers find that getting rid of any doubt relating to their relationship with their child can help strengthen the bond they have with them, instead.

- Paternity Testing Ban Upheld in France | IBDNA Paternity Testing.

France doesn’t allow parents to get a test without a court order and the consent of the other parent. And, no, you can’t get a test and send it off; that’s punishable by up to a year in prison. And Germany is planning something similar, according to AVFM. Once a woman says a man is the father, he has no easy way to question it.

The big problem with this, of course, is that even with NOW alone, they’re supposedly speaking on behalf of their members, which means that either most of their members agree with them, or they’re falsely claiming support of their members. And their members aren’t really saying anything, which is rather inconsistent with the claim that most feminists are in favor of joint custody. That, or they’re not even aware of NOW’s stance, which is consistent with the way most tumblr feminists hush up when I point things like this out.

It sure is odd how, in over a hundred years, the arguments for giving women primary and exclusive custody, used by women’s rights advocates, both relied and rely on abuse and financial concerns. The odd thing is that in the 60s and early 70s, NOW was actually in favor of shared parenting, and according to Warren Farrell, the shift in position happened in the mid to late 70s.