[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

I agree. I do, of course, believe the child's needs are paramount, I was just frustrated by one poster's dismissal of the importance of the mother's role and how much work she does looking after children and running a home, whilst obsessing only on the effects on fathers in some situations and seemingly implying the fathers' needs/feelings should be given priority over all else - it sounded very much like a control issue to me.