Back in the 80's, did the mother usually get costodey over a child when parents where sperated? And what would a mothers lawyer say to try to get the mother to keep the child? And visa versa for the father's lawyer? Post if you need more info.
Need a lawyers help....
- Thread starter Samuel Dark
- Start date
- Status
Note: I am not a lawyer.
But in the 1980s in the US, it was just about the default that children went with the mother. By that, I mean that unless there were extraordinary circumstances, it was assumed that she'd have custody.
But in the 1980s in the US, it was just about the default that children went with the mother. By that, I mean that unless there were extraordinary circumstances, it was assumed that she'd have custody.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
Pretty much. But go back a bit and you run into the opposite situation, where the children went to the father by default.robeiae said:
Aconite said:
Probably largely due to women dying in childbirth, way back when.
--
Note: I'm not an attorney either, but I did work for one for years.
You asked what an attorney might argue for their client in order to get the children.
A Mother's attorney would probably go with the "children need their mother more during the early years" argument.
Most cases where Dad fought for the kids seemed to involve the argument that Mom was an unfit Mother or couldn't/wouldn't provide properly for the kids. Maybe she isn't giving them the emotional care she should be or they are living in an unsafe environment.
One case that sticks in my mind . . .would have been in 1980's:
Dad's attorney arguing that he should have the children because Mom was having boyfriends (overnight) in the house with the kids there. The Judge really ripped her for that, but did not take the children from her custody.
He did tell her he would consider it if she didn't get her act together. This, the unfit portion, would have been what he based his argument on I think. In support of his assertion, he also included:
The old "she's spending child support money on herself instead of the kids." That usually falls on deaf ears as long as the child has proper housing, food, etc. They never seemed to understand that cs money wasn't for clothing and toys and dental appts,alone. Housing, groceries and utilities are included in that mix also.
More because men had legal and economic standing that women didn't. Remember that in the western world, divorce was extremely rare until recently (by "recently," I mean the last few decades), spousal support equally rare, and opportunites for women to earn money in socially acceptable ways very limited.Fern said:
- Status