[user104658]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

Did I say that? I was saying that if both parents are good parents, and only one can get full custody, it makes more sense for it to be the mother as biologically and emotionally she has invested much more and is best placed to do so. In that situation why would the child be taken away from the mother and given to the father - it would make no sense.

I sort of agree but I don't think you're being child-centric enough in your reasoning, which seems to be that the mother "deserves" the children more because they have "invested" more. What either parent has or hasn't invested or does or doesn't deserve is totally irrelevant, all that matters is what's best for the children. It is true however that in MOST (not all) cases, children would be more traumatised by being removed from their mother, even if they love both parents equally and both parents love them equally. And I say that as a dad who would basically struggle to go on at all if my children were taken from me.

However - that's where you hit a bit of a logical paradox. If both parents are good parents then why is one seeking full custody? If a mother knows that their child's father is a good father, why would custody not be shared? If the mother know he's good then she should seek to have her children see him as much as possible. If she seeks otherwise then you hit the paradox: she is *not* a good mother. She is putting her own feelings before what's emotionally best for her children.