QUOTE

, the Mother should always get the children IMO.

I just think she (having carried, given birth, breatfed etc) has and should have more rights than the father

It is very difficult to make a generalisation in this regard. Yet, a hard and fast inclination towards the mother is not a healthy one. For, either of them can be better in lending emotional security to the child.

One of the major factors that needs to be sought out is with whom the child wants to move. Also, in the case of the child being put in the custody of one parent, who are the other persons who would have charge of the child.

It is very cruel to a keep away one parent from seeing the child.

It needs to be understood that in such legal issues, persons tend to input lies to achieve the ends.

The alieniated parent could even turn violent, but that itself would be taken as a negative remark in his or her regard.

Continued

I cannot help coming in again. It is my absolute conviction, that other things being equal a father is a better person to bring up the child. Not because the mother is of less love, or of less capability, but generally because fathers can give more physical mobility to their children.

But then, the clause of other things being equal is always there. At times, mothers do have more intellectual acumen, than fathers, sometimes it is the other way round. Sometime the father is vagrant, sometime a model father.

If a hard and fast rule has been made with an inclination towards mothers, then it is absolute stupidity. Generalisations do not work in this case. And it is for the lawmakers to understand this. And where generalisations do not work, making such things is absolute nonsense.

I think it is a case of the lawmakers going berserk