Here, in this state, primary custody in a divorce settlement is almost always granted to a woman. I think it's mostly a case of tradition and established precedent more than anything. I happen to know personally the first woman who was ever denied primary custody of her child and, not only that, faced to pay child support, but the reason both of those rights were used against her was that she was an alcoholic and had a history of poor judgment as a result. She was also having multiple affairs on the side and had not covered her tracks.

Still, she was the first woman in the state ever to have that happen and I doubt that's happened more than a handful of times since then. A mother has to be clearly unstable before a father will ever be granted primary custody. In this situation to which I referred just now, what I need to mention is that the woman's ex-husband had a lot of money and was a powerful local politician. Had he not been, I doubt the situation would have turned out the way that it did.

When I was in a relationship with a woman who had kids from a previous marriage, she had primary custody and he had visitation rights every other weekend, a week during the summer, and two weeks during Christmas. A tremendous amount of bitterness on both sides existed and she was trying to catch him in enough unsafe activities with the kids present that she could have his visitation rights restricted or at least limited to times where he would have had to be directly supervised by DHR. Still, that would have been a tall order in any case. It is almost impossible to completely restrict visitation rights to the parent who does not have primary custody.

According to the research in this book, http://books.google.com/books?id=pSLnQndf964C&dq=child+custody+statistics&source=gbs_navlinks_s

joint custody is the most popular arrangement, but women are more often given sole custody when it is determined. However, they further break it down by whether custody was awarded based on a judges ruling or by spousal agreement. In most cases where the divorcing couple had already decided custody arrangements, the mother has primary custody. In cases where a judge was asked to decide custody, it was nearly 50/50 based on their sample. I haven't had a chance to read much of the book, but that matches up with what I have seen anecdotally.

From personal experience, I know 11 couples that have divorced in the past 5-7 years who have children/custody arrangements. 7 are 50/50 joint custody, 2 are weekend custody (fathers), 1 is sole custody/mother (father in prison), and 1 is sole custody/father (mother signed away parental rights).

I would love to hear more detailed statistics on this topic as it does come up a lot.

My experience working for a lawyer has been:

1. Custody isn't usually contested. In the vast majority of cases, the parent who is primary caregiver gets custody of the children without any discussion except around the amount of support due. And, in the vast majority of cases, the primary caregiver is the mother. Not always but often enough for mothers to be the rule and fathers the exception.

2. When custody is contested, it is usually for reasons other than the best interest of the child. Often, and I know that this will come as a shock, people getting divorced really hate each other. This hatred blinds them to everything other than screwing over the other. I've seen men, who swore that they'd be suicidal if they didn't get custody, fail to exercise their rights under joint custody after the burning hatred for their ex died away.

3. In Ontario, Canada, divorcing couples who have custodial issues have to go before a judge to plea their case. The judge will decide what is in the best interest of the child. This can be a flawed system since it relies on the impariality of the judge, although I've seen very few instances where the judge wasn't generally fair. As an outside observer in the divorce, it's usually obvious that neither spouse is an absolutely terrible parent and that the child's best interests are served by having a healthy relationship with both parents. Judges are allowed to interview the parents, the children (if appropriate), order parental assesments, etc. I've seen parents (okay, it was a father) who couldn't name their child's teacher or remember what grade they were in. Obviously, that person didn't take an active interest in the child's life before the divorce. He wasn't awarded custody and he may well be bitter about it but he really can't blame anyone for his failure to actively parent his child.

my experience working with lawyers is that women generally get custody. men would get it more if they contested, as long as the child is a boy. as long as the mother took a bath before coming to court, a dad will find it near impossible to get custody of his daughter.

My understanding is that even feminists recognize the unfairness of the system and I know feminists who have worked to helped get men custody and equal treatment in court.

Myself I have a perfect example where I know a woman who has sole custody but is the worst mother ever. Abandons them. Gets DUI's. Forces her kids to do awful things. And they have a wondeful dad. The children desperately want to go live with their Dad but cannot testify or have a say until they are 12 (the boy is 11 now).

I think I read that in Canada for example, the mother gets sole custody (when sole custody is given) in over 95% of the cases. I can believe that the woman should get custody more often then the man - but 95%? Doesn't seem fair to me.

Some of the rhetoric MRA use is bad, but they do have some valid points on this issue, and like I said, in my experience alot of feminists recognize the imbalance and would like to correct it, since it isn't in feminists best interests to have an unfair system against either sex.

It seems to me that any bias towards giving the mother custody would stem from the patriarchial assumption that mothers are the primary caregivers while fathers are the bread-winners who sometimes "babysit" their kids. Any MRA who complains about the result of this assumption and blames it on feminism (rather than on patriarchy) is totally missing the point.

For what it's worth, my dad got sole custody of my brother back in the 80s when that was (as he tells it) unheard of. And I've heard of a few families where the father has sole custody of children (both boys & girls)

"Now divorce attorneys using restraining orders as just another bargaining chip"

Also true in Hawaii as our attorneys tell it. My brother got hit with divorce papers, a TRO, and homelessness in one blow. Then the next day, his wife had him arrested for assault. After our mother put up her house and $60,000 for a lawyer, and my brother indicated a willingness to mediate without going to trial, and poof!, the TRO and police charges disappeared.

Did I mention my mother had a house and $60,000? $60,000 was the minimum quote she could get for a lawyer, and we have FRIENDS for lawyers, as well as a retired circuit court judge as her brother in law! Can you imagine the barriers facing someone without a house or $60,000 cash to defend themselves?

*In the year and a half since then, the lawyers on both sides worked out a 50-50 custody deal, but my brother (who was designated caregiver during the marriage, while she was sole breadwinner, and did not cook or clean) only visits on weekdays and takes his daughter some weekends or holidays, because he considers his residence (an abandoned house belonging to a late uncle) unsafe.

(Again, please imagine the barriers facing people who can't afford to pay lawyers $200 an hour for a year and a half's work. Did I mention my brother was unemployed, because he took himself out of the IT loop for years while raising his daughter? Did I mention my mother was a retired schoolteacher with home loans until 2031?)

Totally amicable negotiations, and they and we remain on friendly terms. A TRO and getting my brother arrested was just another bargaining chip to her millionaire family's attorney. And people wonder why attorneys have a shit reputation. If they wanted to share time with the child, all they had to do was ask.

I've seen some good loving fathers get screwed over child custody. My cousin pays a large amount of money for his child, and has no say in how his daughter is brought up. He gets to see her I think every other weekend and two weeks over the summer. She's only about two years old right now and her mother plans to raise her in a fundamentalist church, and my cousin has no say in this.
My step father pays 200 dollars a month child support for his one daughter (the other is now over the age of 18). There was a time when both daughters stayed with us for a month over the summer and he did not send child support. His ex called and demanded it, saying she got whether the girls were with her or not. Obviously some women, while not bad mothers necessarily, abuse the system.
Of course, for every mother abusing it to her advantage, there's a father neglecting his end. My own father still owes my parents two years back child support. Instead of paying, he remodeled his dining room and bought a boat. He'll never pay it, he was never much of a father.
I feel for my step-father though, he's a great man and great father, but his own daughters fail to recognize it. The youngest is pretty good, but the oldest hardly seems to care at all. As someone with a poor biological father, i can't understand how someone can just ignore a good, loving parent.