"Tender Years" Doctrine

In the 1990s the so-called Tender Years Doctrine was abolished in the courts. This doctrine essentially stated that mothers were the more "fit" parents to give care to their children under 7 years of age. This was an old-school mentality even for the time, and it was overturned legally - but not always figuratively - in order to rule on custody cases with an unbiased eye. In theory, both parents (male or female) should be able and willing to care for children after a divorce. What's surprising as of late is a complete reversal to this system; instead of mothers being seen as the more able-bodied parent, fathers are now being viewed as just as capable if not moreso. I see this as welcome news! Congratulations to us all for realizing that it takes two people to make a baby as well as to care for one! Wow.

In that same vein, however, some groups are advocating that this reversal is backlash for mothers working outside the home. The full story was covered on NPR recently and can be read on the website. The premise is that women who work will not be as involved in the children's lives and do not have as much reason to be granted full custody in situations where both parents are working. I agree that when both parents are working then both parents have less time for child-rearing (just as a matter of how many hours are in the day) but this shouldn't be construed to mean that one is any less EFFECTIVE at parenting than the other. I mean, shouldn't both parents be equally involved in the children's upbringing, hence a 50/50 custody arrangement? Call me naive or idealistic but that's my honest opinion. I know that sometimes with some careers, a parent can have more or less time and resources to provide for children following a divorce, but they still need to be equally involved. Period. I don't exactly see how a woman working outside the home should be viewed by divorce courts any differently than a man who works outside the home. The real issue, it seems, is that gender stereotypes are not completely dissolved. The problem we have today is that "when a mom is working long hours, she's held to a higher standard" and that needs to change. Our strict mindsets of 'who' is better at 'what' need to change.



When I was young, my mom worked outside the home AND inside the home because she didn't have any other option. She was a single parent with four kids and that was what she had to do. If given the option, I am sure she wouldn't have worked BUT without that luxury, she did what was necessary. I hope all parents want to do that for their kids. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to stay at home, certainly not in most families today! And that's not so bad. Seeing your parents work hard - at home and/or in the workplace - for things they really care about is one of the best lessons you can teach kids. But it doesn't have to be the way things used to be. It should be whatever works for you and your family at this moment, given the circumstances of your life. I think courts should take more time to evaluate each case rather than making life-altering and potentially WRONG decisions with little information. Or, barring any child endangerment or abuse, BOTH parents should automatically get a 50/50 split on custody. Give me one good reason it should be any other way.