Feminists, Custody and Family Law.

A simple way to confirm that a particular ideology has captured mainstream culture is to monitor the political vigour or sluggishness around the causes that it deems "correct" and "incorrect."

Barbara Kay writing for the Canadian newspaper National Post takes on politically correct feminists over child custody in her article aptly titled Disenfranchised Dads. As a long-time single father I definitely have a horse in this race, as it were.

Gay marriage, a "correct" feminist cause, affects 2% of the population and enjoys about 50% public support -- yet was passed into law at the speed of light, without meaningful consultation or debate. But decades-long appeals for reform to outdated custody laws, affecting 40% of the population (many more tangentially), languish in near-obscurity.

And though eight years have passed since a non-partisan, Canada-wide task force made up of MPs and Senators garnered wide support in recommending shared parenting as a default post-divorce arrangement, feminism still trumps gender equality in family court. That is, women are still awarded sole custody in 90% of disputed cases.

This reflects judicial acquiescence to reigning feminist orthodoxy: Children are essentially the possessions of women, women never lie (or are justified when they do) and men want access to children only to control women.

I don't have any current statistics but I've heard that it's slightly less biased in favor of women here in the United States, although I believe there are significant differences state to state. In any case I think the dynamics in play are essentially the same here as they are in Canada.

Ms. Kay is as much taking on the legal system as she is feminist orthodoxy. Which I think is probably where the bulk of responsibility lays. After all, it is the legal rulings coming from the judiciary which are really at issue here since they form the battlefields upon which the genders joust for control. Unfortunately the best interests of the children don't seem to play a very big role in the charade.

The remedy is to abandon existing family law. In its place, we should combine gender equity with the best interests of children by legislating default shared parenting -- the preferred option for child-focused women, virtually all fathers and most kids.

Numerous studies have concluded that children under shared parenting do significantly better on all adjustment measures than those in sole custody. Contrary to the claims of feminist consultants to family courts, peer-reviewed data shows that over time shared parenting decreases parental conflict, increases co-operation and boosts support compliance.

I personally am not yet convinced that 50/50 shared physical custody is in the best interests of the child. I'm no expert by any means, but it seems to me that children need a single place which is identified as home. Not just physically identified, though. I think the more important issue is that kids have a place which is emotionally "home" to them. If "shared parenting" means something broader, like say 60/40 or 70/30 splits then that is another issue entirely and I have no particular reason to oppose the concept.

I could write an entire essay on this subject just based on my own experiences, as I suspect most any divorced or otherwise non-nuclear parent could. But Ms. Kay makes a compelling point:

Most significantly, in all six American states with legislated default shared parenting, divorce rates have fallen markedly -- confirming a widely held belief in the field that expectation of sole custody is the main reason a large number of divorce cases are initiated by women. The positive economic and social fallout from fewer divorces is plain to eyes that see.

All of which begs the question of what is the point of family law? Is it to impose an ideology upon society regardless of the consequences? Or is it about the best interests of both the children and the parents?