As previously discussed on Babble, father's rights groups have made a name for themselves in Britain climbing the Tower of London dressed as superheroes, but in the States, a more low-key approach has been used to mixed effect.
Groups such as the American Coalition for Fathers and Children have lobbied hard to get legislatures, the courts, and the public to recognize the impacts divorce has on all parties, particularly fathers. Like other father's rights groups, the ACFC's mission includes eliminating gender bias in the legal system, and the importance of both parents in the emotional
and psychological development of their children. And like their British counterparts, this group identifies equal shared parenting as the optimal arrangement for all involved, rather than the current standard of deciding custody based on the best interests of the children.
Regardless of what you feel is "fair" and "optimal" vis a vis shared parenting, the advantage of using the "best for children" test to decide custody is that it requires placing the child's needs before those of the parents. I find it hard to believe that 50% custody (one week at mommy's house followed by one week at daddy's house) is optimal for as many children as many father's rights groups claim. It doesn't pass the laugh test (small infant spends one week with Dad then one week with Mom), let alone the basic developmental and attachment needs of small humans.
There is no question that fathers and mothers are crucial to raising healthy attached children. There is also no question that divorce has an impact on children (much of it negative). But to throw out the current standards of family law in favor of a utopian ideal of fairness, is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
