Men’s rights activists (MRAs) have historically argued that the family court system is biased against men, and that it benefits from discrimination against men.

Some of the key points that men’s rights activists have argued are that men are less likely to be awarded custody of their children in family court, are often ordered to pay higher child support than they can afford, and are less likely to receive a fair outcome in divorce proceedings. Activists argue that family court judges, family court lawyers and family court therapists are biased against men, which have historically led to this discrimination.

They have also argued that the system is set up in a way that makes it easier for mothers to win custody battles, even if they are not the better parent, and that men are often presumed to be less capable of caring for their children.

While it is important to note that these are perspectives and opinions of some men’s rights activists who have direct experience and have directly witnessed proceedings in the family court system, patterns that are discussed and documented by the average men should not be ignored. That is to say that these aren’t just random talking points from people with no experience in this topic. If there are 2 men discussing how family court failed them and they lost their children.

Family courts say that they tend to make decisions that are in the best interests of the child and claim they do not discriminate on the basis of gender. However, a decisive argument can be made that the best interests standard used by the courts in child custody cases is not an objective formula, but rather a form of unfettered discretion that allows judges to make decisions based on their own biases and subjective opinions. This level of discretion is dangerous and can lead to unfair outcomes for children. Appellate courts have a very short list of reversed cases on best interest determination, which implies a lack of oversight on lower courts decisions. As an example, the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, Bridget Mary McCormack, stated at one point that the best-interests standard is capable of allowing judges in all states to have individual, subjective biases about parenting which drives their decision-making and ultimately makes the system frustrating for fathers.

It’s also worth noting that there are various factors that can impact the outcome of family court cases, such as the specific laws of each jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of each case. It’s always a good idea to seek professional legal advice and representation when dealing with family court matters.

Add Your Comment