Women are strong and independent until they get in family xourt, then it's the 1600s again. My argument is that if they can't support the child, why do they get custody? They should go to the person who would need the least financial assistance.
You forgot the safest home. Try winning custody when his mom's husband treatens her and had to go in for a threat of harm eval and she called 911 on her own husband. If she plays her cards right she still wins and you get an extra day custody. Plus she brain washes your child even more to despise you and your insanely loving family to the point you are now the bad one and he no longer wants to see you...
Women are strong and independent until they get in family xourt, then it's the 1600s again. My argument is that if they can't support the child, why do they get custody? They should go to the person who would need the least financial assistance.
You forgot the safest home. Try winning custody when his mom's husband treatens her and had to go in for a threat of harm eval and she called 911 on her own husband. If she plays her cards right she still wins and you get an extra day custody. Plus she brain washes your child even more to despise you and your insanely loving family to the point you are now the bad one and he no longer wants to see you...
You would be interested in the Custody of Infants Act of 1839. It's the origin of the Tender Years Doctrine that established default maternal custody.
Fathers used to have default custody because they were, by default, financially liable for most things.
Even if mom is a derelict drug addict or alcoholic, The burden of proof is on you as a father. She will still get default custody.
There is also a large time commitment for raising children that may be difficult to take on by yourself when you are working full time.