Mothers are for keeping House Fathers are for bringing home the money.

Family courts, and in particular court 246 Houston seem to retain remnants of the theory mothers are for keeping house while fathers are for bringing home money. Enshrined in this belief, is family court has to frame court decisions to ensure at the conclusion of a divorce trial, that is not settled through mediation, that mother gets primary residence and temporary custody of the children and eventual child support.

That fathers are parents and should be considered equally in family issues does not seem to be a reality that family courts are likely to acknowledge. In minority circumstances, the court seem to pave the way for the mothers to have primary residence and child custody during the hearing stages when temporary orders are decided.

 And if for any reason the male component of the case had the children and primary residence and he misses a hearing for any reason, the court exploits the situation, grants primary residence and custody to the mother and simply have the Attorney General tack on the final nail in the coffin, child support. These judgments may be bias, manipulated, misguided and not in the interest of children involved.

That fathers are parents too is widely ignored by family courts and consequently lead to decisions from the court that are bias, one sided and not in the interest of any one involved. Family courts have not evolved to the stage where  they believe parents provide equal opportunities for the care and well being of the child.

 Family court remove components from the parent  that is not of their choosing  to be the primary parent  of their choosing  making it difficult for the disadvantaged parent at the final phase of the divorce. Their decisions have not only disadvantaged the other parent they have compromised any effort at successful mediation and consequently any chance of achieving an economical conclusion at the time of final divorce.

 Family courts have to evaluate the parent who is able to provide the best interest of the child in its totality. If children have been living with their father their entire lives, but due to a  legal technicality the father was removed from the home as a temporary measure, the court should not use that decision as a default to award custody, primary residence and child support to the mother.

 I am calling on law makers to review cases where either parent  has had  changes  to residence and custody  and ends up by default  losing  primary residence, custody and child support at final judgment.