> in cases of divorce, my argument is simply based upon the history of civil family case laws. its a fact whoever initiates proceedings has established custodial rights until it can be proven to be insufficient. and women are more often than not granted sole physical custody (even when men are the plaintiff) and aren't usually held responsible for violations of legal and physical custody and visitation. speaking from experience here. i was granted shared physical custody and legal custody when i was the plaintiff. my ex completely ignored the court orders and has been found in contempt of court 4 times. these documents and rulings mean nothing if a woman refuses to comply and if the courts won't enforce these decisions. in the courts' attempt to "enforce" their own decisions in my case, they've now granted my ex full legal and physical custody because it's "in the best interest of the kids" because "high conflict" exists and it doesn't matter who is the source of the conflict (by case history, its clearly my ex). their "resolution" has been to grant my ex full custody while mandating that she take our children to "reintegration" therapy, which, shockingly, she is not doing, because why would she when she's "lost" every case but still isn't held accountable? don't bullshit me that men "win" 100% of the time. even when we win, courts are still biased toward women and won't hold them accountable.
United States