what kind of judge would award custody to a dad who left his family in debt with no utilies?

So the kids were better off homeless with the mom????

The same could be said of, the bias that the court system has against fathers, when the mother is clearly incapable of being a single parent.

Yet, The court awards custody to the mother saying they will help her in every way possible. But, They not only do not award custody to a father who is clearly more capable. If the father is awarded custody, the courts' refuse to help the father in any way that he might need help.

Also, If it is a situation of domestic violence, the woman can claim BWS(Battered Women's Syndrome) and, as in the case of Mary Winkler, even to the point of murder. But, If it is the man being battered, he is just told to leave the relationship and, if he feels like he has to kill his spouse/significant other, to free himself from the abuse, he is almost guaranteed to get the chair, needle, chamber, noose or, whatever form of the death penalty is used, where the incident occurred.

First of all, I am sure this is only a small part of the story. I would have to know why the mother in this case did nothing to prevent the utilities from being turned off and not paying rent to ensure the well being of her children. That alone tells me the mother is more than likely unfit to have the children. This type of situation often happens because one person or the other does not take responsibility for themselves and their children. If the mother could prove she was doing everything within her power to provide for her children and herself, and considering the courts usually favor the mother, I would say there is a huge part of the story missing. Also depending when the DV conviction happened this may or may not affect the case in any manner.

Without the REAL details of the case, we can't really comment. Given the immense bias among judges towards women in custody cases, there had to be severe abuse or risk of danger to the children for such a ruling. But as I say, we cannot judge without all the details.

Legally, since the mother was unable to sustain her family (pay bills, etc.) without the father, who apparently makes money, she would be unable to provide for her children, and is therefore "unfit" to hold custody.

I don't see how it was his responsibility to support the wife once he left the relationship. Obviously during the divorce he would have been assigned child support and possibly alimony. His responsibilities lie no further than that.

I would have had to be there.

These are complicated things with many intertwined stories.

All I know for sure is that the Judge's main desire is to do what he thinks is best for the children.

there is no law that says you get to keep your kids if your on drugs.

however what happened in the past is not always what determines custody.

maybe the husband cleaned himself up. and is today a fit parent.

I do think you can challenge the decision just as long as you have valid reasoning. A lawyer might be of assistance, too.