by Brandy Fee

Created on: May 05, 2008   Last Updated: January 05, 2011

Decades ago, fathers were considered the owners of their children. When there was a divorce, which was rare, the father kept the children, the property, and anything else that might exist in the marriage. Over time, with women fighting for equal rights, women were given "custody" of their children based on the idea that children needed to be nurtured. Women were thought to be the nurturers in their lives.

These were the days when fathers worked and mothers stayed home with the children, when fathers were disciplinarians and mothers were coddlers.

Today, while women still fight for equality, for the same standing in the world as men, we have, as society, still made the one distinct separation - children.

Today, however, many fathers carry a deeper relationship with their children. They are often not the only disciplinarians in their home. There are, many times, where mother and father play equal roles in their marriage and in parenting. Is there some reason then, that once the marriage is over, fathers no longer have the "right" to play an equal role in their children's lives?

Fathers are still considered the "money-makers". They are ordered to pay support, and if they fail to do so, are thrown in jail. Mothers are ordered to allow visitation, which by all standards is less than sufficient time for any parent-child relationship to grow. But what happens when a mother fails to allow that visitation? A slap on the wrist is the usual norm.

As society, we have put fathers in a less than equal position of parenting, taking away the relationship they have nurtured with their children. When did men become unfit parents? The day they were divorced?

Fathers have not been given enough credit for the parenting they do. The courts are stuck in a time warp, still seeing the weeping mothers as the stronger parent.

In truth, while this hurts the father, does it not ultimately hurt the child even more? When the courts have stated "the best interests of the child" have they truly thought through that issue? Is every other weekend and certain holidays, mixed with a few weeks in the summer truly the only relationship that a child needs with their fathers?

What makes one relationship more important than the other?

There is no answer.

So you would think, then, that the courts would seek an answer that gives equality to the relationships of fathers and mothers and their children. Joint custody being one. However, how many times have you heard the saying - "Joint custody only works when the parents can agree?"

Truly, what a sad cop-out that has become. "I'm sorry, I can't get along with him/her, so joint custody will not work."

So, in the end, the courts can force a father out of his relationship with his child, but can not force a mother to give equality to the father? No, it is too much work. After all, with all the man hours spent going after dead-beat dads, who has time to see to it that fathers are treated fairly in the courtroom?

But let us speak of the children, I mean, after all, isn't it the parents who have chosen to divorce each other? Or did I miss something and the child now signs in approval? Is it not the child who is uprooted from the family and home that he or she has known? So now, where once a father stood, an empty shell stands until, finally, after two weeks of waiting, there are two days of visitation?

Ah, yes, you see, fathers are looked down upon, they are stereotyped, and they are, quite frankly, given the shaft. Kudos to you who have the gall to stand tall and spout your bull - I mean, after having to pay for attorneys, child support, and maintenance, what father can afford to fight for custody?

Learn more about this author, Brandy Fee.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.