1. Equal parenting makes kids less safe. WTDMS: Sole custody, particularly sole maternal custody, increases the risk to kids of physical abuse and neglect. Mom’s new boyfriend is statistically a greater sexual abuse threat than dad and sex predators often target kids without dads as victims. Equal parenting reduces conflict in the divorce process and in the longer term. This all shows that equal parenting is far safer for kids than the status quo of family courts, sole custody.
2. We should not have presumptions (i.e. equal parenting) in the law. WTDMS: We have all sorts of presumptions in law: the presumption of innocence and in family law the presumption that the husband is the father of a child of the marriage. This is mostly done to set the burden of proof. Married parents are both equally responsible for their children. Equal parenting simply continues this presumption in divorce with the burden of proof on whoever wishes to change that equal responsibility. This presumption makes sense.
3. Equal parenting is “one size fits all” but each case needs to be considered specially. WTDMS: The existing system is the “one size fits all” status quo of father “access” twice a month, if allowed. Equal parenting works to incentivize parents to work out their own varied and flexible arrangements: split custody, alternating school years, parallel parenting, parenting plans, joint custody, alternating residence, and a myriad of others. Family courts do not consider each case individually, but jam the overwhelming majority of parents into an outdated, sexist, inflexible stereotype.
4. Mothers do most parenting so naturally should get custody. WTDMS: Measuring parenting by child care hours excludes much of what fathers do. Fathers actually put in more time in the teen years and seem to have stronger influences on positive outcomes for children, in educational and social success, for example. Pre-separation parenting time does not predict post-separation children’s needs. Balanced research shows that kids need both parents,
5. Courts award custody to the best parent. WTDMS: 90% of “awards” are sole maternal custody, but 90% of fathers are not unfit. Children need and benefit from both parents. The best parent is both parents.
6. The system follows “best interests of the child” WTDMS: The legal system follows precedent and the interests of those who pay the most. It is a “winner take all” system with bias toward sole custody. Even judges admit the system is too costly, too slow, too subject to procedural gamesmanship and does not make sense for children and parents.
7. Equal parenting is impractical as it means enforcing exactly equal time for each parent. WTDMS: Equal parenting within marriage does not enforce exactly equal time so why misinterpret it that way in divorce? It means equal status and respect for both parents. It means one parent, or the court cannot arbitrarily reduce the other parent’s time with the kids or exclude that parent, without showing unfitness based on good evidence.
8. The problem is bad parents; the current system is doing the best it can. WTDMS: The adversarial family law system forces parents to fight while they are emotionally vulnerable, providing incentives for false and exaggerated accusations. Non-adversarial systems in effective use in various jurisdictions, show that the overwhelming majority of parents can work out their own shared parenting plans and make them work if the perverse incentives of the legal system are not rewarded.
9. The system has made lots of effective changes. WTDMS: the percentage of real joint custody, or equal parenting has not changed in forty years of “window-dressing” reforms. Fathers only get custody, according to Dr. Ed. Kruk’s analysis of Justice Canada data, when women do not go for sole custody. The advice to fathers from the legal profession has not changed in 40 years: you almost certainly won’t get joint custody, and you can’t afford the court system. Legal professionals claim wonderful changes every few years, but these don’t affect outcomes and increase the cost, time and complexity of family law.
10. “Parents need no rights as those rights conflict with children’s needs”. WTDMS: Parents have responsibility for their children and need rights to get health and educational information on their children, and to represent their interests. Comparatively, legal and other professionals have no responsibility for the consequences of their actions or inactions in the legal system, as long as they don’t violate their “code of conduct.” Responsibility without rights is slavery. Rights without responsibility is tyranny. Parents need a balance of rights and responsibilites.
by Glenn Cheriton, with thanks to Fathers and Families and Robert Franklin
English (Canada) 
Français du Canada