Any father who has been engaged in a custody battle with the mother of his children have heard their attorney, the courts, and even the judge use the phrase “The best interest of the child”. This could be broadly defined as which parent has the best environment and resources to develop the child physical, educational, moral, and spiritual well-being. One would consider such factors to be seminal to the foundation of a child’s development. However, the “The best interest” interpretation appears to fluid in the modern day court system
The modern configuration of the family court system is derived from domestic relations courts, which sought to effectively serve as arbitration in separation disputes. Upon its conception it was apparent that many of the plaintiffs in most need of assistance were female. Due to chauvinistic traditions in western European society, women in the United States prior to the 1970 were severely hampered in terms of common or civil law. As a result, women’s rights were at best, near second class citizenry.
This stark reality in the US is what set the precedent for siding with the mother in a majority of instances in family law. For decades the family court system has consistently sided with mothers in the process of separations. In a majority of circumstances family courts tend to give custody of kin over to the mother. Upon examination of the court’s reasoning, it becomes readily apparent that the court typically believes that mothers are better nurturers of their young.
While the merits of caretaking of young can be debated, the courts overall slant in the direction of the mothers cannot be. The US census for 2019 states that roughly 35% of custody battles end with the father gaining full custody of his child. This means that a whopping 65% or 6 out of 10 scenarios end up with the child going to the mother over the father. Given that mothers are more than double as likely to receive custody, its safe to say that the courts reasonings have nothing to do with actual caretaking abilities of the mother, rather that the court is still using the age-old practice of siding with the mother simply for being the mother.
Many believe that since the mother gives birth to the child, she should have primary custody of the child. However, this seems to be gynocentric in theory since most child psychologist suggest that both parents are needed in rearing of a productive adult. The court appears to be pushing a gynocritic agenda with the intention of eliminating fathers from the home and substituting the patriarch of the family for the state’s assistance. Many argue that lunacy of single parenting is the first step in a dysfunctional paradigm that destroys the lives of children and as a result, families.
After the birth of second wave feminism in the 1960’s and its instituting in the courts, the results became far more damning. Not only were children more likely to be raised by their mother alone, now those children also had to contend with the idea that their resulting families were better off without their fathers. The ensuing generations were far more poised towards crime, endemic poverty and suicides at rates never witnessed.
On top of these revelations, the family kangaroo court system often use their resources to intimidate, malign, and exhaust fathers in the process. For example, the courts will do a financial background check on the mother as well as the father, but will not attempt a mental or criminal background check on the mother (who usually retains custody of child for time of initial proceedings) unless the father can force a recommendation for such a test on the court. This would cause the father, who only wishes to demonstrate the competence of the opposing party, to spend thousands of dollars attempting to get his attorney to compose & subsequently present the recommendation to the court. And if the cost of showing negligence wasn’t enough, the father in majority of states in the US will be required to pay for most of the initial filing fees. Not only is justice blind, she already has her mind made up on who she wants to side with and has her hand in your pocket the entire time.
The cold hard truth is that the family court system has not only become a financial snare for Black men, but an gleefully maintained recruiting network for Black women so “big government” can come and institute the image of white utilitarian forces constantly wedge themselves in the middle of the Black family unit.
Who has the best interest of a Black child?
The answer is both parents.
The mother’s role is big when it comes to love and nurturing a child, but the father’s role is critical when it comes to developing a Black child’s internal fortitude. For example, much of the prison populace states consistently that they grew up in a fatherless home or didn’t have a relationship with their father. While the US correction system is abundantly clear on how missing fathers cause higher incarceration rates, the effects on the mind of the Black youth is less evident.
We’ve been socially engineered to not see the value of a father in the household. As fathers have been pushed out of the homes in the last 40 years we’ve seen a embracing of degenerate nature. From the “gangster” rap movement that glorified drug dealing and killing of fellow Brothas, to the fashion styles of long white drug tees or recently skinny skinny jeans, all the way to men dressing in.. well dresses! The role of the Black male in the single mother home has with utmost certainty, been diminished to that of a counterfeit female.
The remedy to the Black community’s current cultural failings appear to be directly linked to missing fathers in the home and it cannot be overstated how important this fact is. Not seeing the value of a father is causing a chain reaction of chaos in families all across the country.
Any group making a grab for political, economic, or influential power must have a warrior class. A class of men ready to take lead and action in any scenario, anytime. In a dire situation where a group has been targeted for systemic socio-economic violence, it would be idiotic for said group to disregard the physical & psychological protection for their youth. Black fathers teach their young to defend themselves, not plead. Black fathers teach their youth how to maneuver around obstacles, not protest endlessly. Black men will prepare their children to dominate, not cohabitate.
So, what are the solutions?
Black men need to have a lawyer on retainer, or get acquainted with a family law attorney regardless of if we’re married or not. We cannot expect a court system that’s weaponized against us to value our tears, but we can expect it to fear our finances. We must be ready retain custody of our children even if it means an all out legal battle.
We have to get an attorney that is willing to take his case and is willing to go all out for him and his children. Most men hire attorney’s that will settle instead of fighting all the way. Advise your attorney in the most intelligent way as possible as to why you need full custody or at the very minimal, 50/50 custody over kin.
A father has to treat his children as an investment. Children are the future, they’ll carry-on the father’s wisdom and personal truth, which creates the basis of our legacies. Make sure your beliefs and knowledge are enriched within your children. Begin instilling good morals at the earliest age possible. Lead by example. Show the mother, courts and your child what a powerful Black man’s work ethic looks like.
You need to show the injustice system that you won’t have them meddling in your affairs and show spouse that you value your child’s security more than you value your previous spouse’s opinion of you.
This is a long process and yes, it can be very frustrating for fathers. But Brothas, if we handle this matter as strictly business, the results will surprise you. Your children will be stronger, more confident, and be ready to take on the challenges the world present to them.
–Anthony Dunham, B1Daily