It Boggles the Mind

And, really, thank god for Campfield’s mind-boggles, because after this afternoon only a mind-boggle like he delivers could unboggle my mind from discovering that I’m spouting Republican talking points.

So, anyway, I’m reading along about his exciting adventure with his “presumption of joint custody” bill when he says

Currently 95% of contested custody cases go to the woman. Even when abuse is not part of the equation at all that number holds true. Where possible, reasonable, wanted and in the best interest of children that should be the case. The single parent household is killing the development of children. While not always the case you can look at about any study and the single parent household will rank at the top as a factor or common denominator for a child’s failure. Both parents are important to the life and development of the child and not just as a wallet.

America, I don’t even know what to say.  If this passes this year is he going to require next year that divorcing parents continue to live together?  Or that you can only get divorced once you have someone else lined up to marry?  Because, if not, I don’t understand how he’s going to prevent kids of divorced parents from living in single-parent households.  Even if parents have joint custody, the kids will still have two single parent households to be shuffled between.

So, what am I missing here?  Are Republicans going to work on banning divorce next?  Or will they get in the spouse-handing-out business?

7 thoughts on “It Boggles the Mind

  1. Dear Lord… what does this man have against women? Some woman did a serious number on him.

    FYI, I know a LOT of Republicans, and very few think like this guy. Wow.

  2. Remember, it doesn’t have to make sense or even have a realistic chance of passing. It is a dog whistle, and its success will be determined in the next election.

  3. I’m not sure it’s even meant as a dog whistle. I think he just hates/fears women so much that everything for him is about controlling us. Only he can’t say that, so he goes off into blather.

  4. Women and our magical ability to steal money that rightfully belongs to men through the wonder of this thing called “a baby.”

    I think ‘Coma’s absolutely right that this is not so much about getting more equitable custody arrangements for men so that they can spend time with their kids, but about working it so that they can spend less money on their kids. And that’s pretty vile, really.

  5. Here’s the catch to all of this. The courts already determine what is best for the child. That’s how 95% of women end up with the kids in the first place. There is no legislative remedy for this!

    The answer to the problem, from a male’s perspective, is to sue for full custody of the kids in a divorce. I don’t have the precise numbers handy on how often that happens, but I do recall that the figure is astonishingly low.

    That’s the root of the problem. That’s why the numbers are so skewed. Men don’t sue for full custody of the kids nearly as consistently as women, and that’s why most kids go live with Mom after the divorce. I am only aware of one male who sued to get the kids, and guess what? He won custody raised them by himself, and yes, it was in Tennessee. It wasn’t some landmark exception to the rule, it was just the simple fact that he cared enough to try.

    The fault, dear Campfield, is not in our Courts, but in ourselves.

  6. Pingback: Family Values Interventionism : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

  7. Oklahoma is a “Mother’s rights first” state. Moms have to be very, very screwed up to not get at least joint custody. The thinking is that women tend to be the primary care-givers for children, even if they’re working moms. I have heard of a couple of cases wherein the men were the primary care-provider before the divorce and got custody (like my husband. Of course, his ex asked for a car and money in exchange for giving him sole custody, but it was likely going to happen, anyway, before she made that little offer).

    I have joint custody of my daughter. I also have primary physical custody. The two are separate issues, entirely. I can also foresee a day when I’ll have to request sole custody, not because her dad is in any way incapable of being a decision-maker in her life, but because his career is likely to take him a long way away on a frequent basis, and the “joint-parenting” logistics may get too complicated. It’s amazing the number of papers that require BOTH our signatures…

    So, now that I’ve written a novel of back story, I’d like to say that bill is bull. It’s really just simpler for one parent to have primary decision-making for a child. It’s also easier on most kids to have as little shuffling about as possible between houses. I was a ping-pong ball child. It’s hard as hell! Yes, not seeing my dad much was hell, too. But he called often (and always took time out to talk to me when I called him). When I was with him, he made the most of every moment to talk and get to know me. He knew my friends (and still knows at least knows of most of my friends). He was involved.

    Custody and involvement are NOT synonymous. And trying to legislate the act of parenting seems only likely to backfire.

Comments are closed.