Divorce plunged in Kentucky – equal custody for fathers is a big reason why(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Divorce plunged in Kentucky – equal custody for fathers is a big reason why
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/the-equal-custody-experiment-41e1f7a6
75 comments
https://archive.ph/36V0N
I went through this process of being granted shared custody as a father in MN. My son's mom called me a rapist, abuser and had child protective services twice to my house with zero evidence. I was guilty until proven innocent. I was informally psychoanalyzed by two different parenting consultants assigned (voluntarily) by the court. I have zero criminal record. I wouldnt wish what happened to me to anyone. She was always seen as a "protective mom" and while I was emotionally tormented throughout the 3 year ordeal. I was granted shared custody after 13 months and the remainder of the 3 years were spent defending myself from lies. She only stopped after the parenting consultants would continue to compel her alone to meetings to "discuss" coparenting. The cost of those private meetings were $600/hr. I never understood why a father could just quit and walk away from their children. I now understand why. I was never going to quit but I had the advantage of money and time. I couldnt imagine going through that process if I made $50K/year. I am still processing what happened to me and I am definitely a different person now. I carry a weight with me that only I can feel. I hope they change the law and give fathers rights by default.
Has therapy been helpful?
Lies! I've been told as a man your life is a constant stream of undeserved "privilege"
God I hate these people
God I hate these people
The comment you replied to shared a deeply personal experience. Consider what value your comment added to the discussion.
No offense.
No offense.
I'm 99% sure the comment you're responding to was sarcastic and ultimately agreeing with GP.
I am 100% sure parent comment was being sarcastic. But who hasn’t seen that same old sarcastic cliché a million times.
check nervhq's other posts
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Nervhq
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Nervhq
I would go as far as to say divorce by itself should always result in split custody.
Other proceedings can take custody away. For example, if both parents are abusive, they should both run the risk of losing custody, regardless of if they are married or divorced.
Divorce by itself is irrelevant.
I’m not saying we should leave kids with abusers, I’m saying the process of determine whether one or both of the parents are abusive needs to seperate from divorce.
This is already happening.
Many district attorneys have begun refusing to prosecute abuse claims - or any marital crime - until divorce cases are over.
In some cases the abuse adjudication might happen first. But it shouldn’t happen at the divorce hearing.
The idea being to separate the civil divorce from a criminal prosecution.
Divorce should always seek to maximize parent rights for both parents.
Other proceedings can deal with abuse.
Other proceedings can take custody away. For example, if both parents are abusive, they should both run the risk of losing custody, regardless of if they are married or divorced.
Divorce by itself is irrelevant.
I’m not saying we should leave kids with abusers, I’m saying the process of determine whether one or both of the parents are abusive needs to seperate from divorce.
This is already happening.
Many district attorneys have begun refusing to prosecute abuse claims - or any marital crime - until divorce cases are over.
In some cases the abuse adjudication might happen first. But it shouldn’t happen at the divorce hearing.
The idea being to separate the civil divorce from a criminal prosecution.
Divorce should always seek to maximize parent rights for both parents.
Other proceedings can deal with abuse.
That's kind of weird, because in other situations it's customary for the criminal investigation and trial to come before the civil cases are resolved. What's the rationale for deferring the criminal charges?
From what I remember, it’s concern about false allegations, and witnesses not cooperating once they realize people in prison don’t pay alimony or child support.
Overall, it’s a desire to keep the divorce and criminal processes seperete.
Overall, it’s a desire to keep the divorce and criminal processes seperete.
Kentucky’s divorce rate has plummeted.
Between 2016 and 2023 it fell 25%,
compared with a nationwide decline of 18%I would be interested to see if the national divorce rate dropping was because marriage rates were dropping, if by convention/expense/etc., and therefore decreasing unhappy marriage
Or a realization that it's difficult or impossible to survive (or maintain a standard of living) in a single-income household.
> it's difficult or impossible to survive (or maintain a standard of living) in a single-income household.
You aren't wrong. We've been in a 4-income economy since 2020. Housing here is up 2x since 2020 and 5x from mid 1990s.
You aren't wrong. We've been in a 4-income economy since 2020. Housing here is up 2x since 2020 and 5x from mid 1990s.
Very interesting I didn't realize divorce rates were dropping across the nation. Still seems like KY is ~40% better than the average.
When you're at the bottom the only direction is up: marriage rates
Having a system as described where parents with evidence of abuse can't protect their kids from abusers seems absolutely unacceptable. Patching over that with the current unfair assumptions about men vs. women as suitable parents isn't better!
oh is that how it's described?
Well, the author of the article found several people sharing experiences that they heard from other people that seem to give credence to that view.
Hard to know at this point if the problem is with specific judges, with the way the law is written, or if the presentation of these experiences are made to seem more numerous by the way the article presents the story. It also didn't cover instances of abuse coming from mothers, so there's at least a little bias in the story.
Hard to know at this point if the problem is with specific judges, with the way the law is written, or if the presentation of these experiences are made to seem more numerous by the way the article presents the story. It also didn't cover instances of abuse coming from mothers, so there's at least a little bias in the story.
ENGNR(3)
I’d be curious to see what the marriage and fertility rate is over the next five years.
Not sure what the causal connection would be there.
If women feel like it is no longer safe to marry because they will be forced into equal custody, those rates would decline. Safer to stay single and childfree (from a risk management perspective).
Not that this is too far off from existing trends, so I'm unsure if measuring in Kentucky alone is enough to control against the broader national trends:
https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-eco...
> 45% of prime working age women (ages 25-44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018.
https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/50th-edition-spring-2025
> Just 48% of young Americans say having kids is important—the lowest ranking among the six life goals we measured. It signifies a generational shift away from traditional family formation.
Not that this is too far off from existing trends, so I'm unsure if measuring in Kentucky alone is enough to control against the broader national trends:
https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-eco...
> 45% of prime working age women (ages 25-44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018.
https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/50th-edition-spring-2025
> Just 48% of young Americans say having kids is important—the lowest ranking among the six life goals we measured. It signifies a generational shift away from traditional family formation.
>If women feel like it is no longer safe to marry because they will be forced into equal custody
The word choice of your comment is beyond absurd and your usual schtick of cherry picking links to back up your point doesn't make it any less absurd.
It's mostly men who don't wanna get married and/or start a family and do all that stuff because (in states that have yet to reform their laws) they stand to lose half their shit and not even have half a kid to show for it.
I have zero sympathy for people, of any gender, for whom not being on the favorable end of unequal treatment in divorce/custody is the marginal difference that makes them not get married.
The word choice of your comment is beyond absurd and your usual schtick of cherry picking links to back up your point doesn't make it any less absurd.
It's mostly men who don't wanna get married and/or start a family and do all that stuff because (in states that have yet to reform their laws) they stand to lose half their shit and not even have half a kid to show for it.
I have zero sympathy for people, of any gender, for whom not being on the favorable end of unequal treatment in divorce/custody is the marginal difference that makes them not get married.
> It's mostly men who don't wanna get married and/or start a family and do all that stuff because (in states that have yet to reform their laws) they stand to lose half their shit and not even have half a kid to show for it.
> I have zero sympathy for people, of any gender, for whom not being on the favorable end of unequal treatment in divorce/custody is the marginal difference that makes them not get married.
I guess you have zero sympathy for a large chunk of men then, because first you say that men don't get married because they lose their stuff in a divorce, and then you say that you have zero sympathy for people who don't get married because of it.
> I have zero sympathy for people, of any gender, for whom not being on the favorable end of unequal treatment in divorce/custody is the marginal difference that makes them not get married.
I guess you have zero sympathy for a large chunk of men then, because first you say that men don't get married because they lose their stuff in a divorce, and then you say that you have zero sympathy for people who don't get married because of it.
Simply on semantic grounds, this is an unreasonable conclusion. "I will not do X unless I am given an unfair advantage" is not at all the same as "I will not do X if the system is unfairly biased against me".
"I would get married but I don't trust my potential spouse not to screw me over" is just not something that requires sympathy. If that's how someone feels, it's probably better for everyone (them, their spouse, and society as a whole) that they don't get married. There's no virtue in being married without a strong basis of mutual trust, nor is there any shame in remaining unmarried because you haven't found someone right for you
Oh don't worry. That's what "de-facto" relationship legislation is for.
https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/fl/pubs/defacto
You can now be forced to pay child support - including for kids that aren't your own kids - without ever being married.
There are people who'll do anything for money. Some of those people are women, and occasionally a man succeeds at this too. Children are a way to extract large amounts of money over time from partners. The state cooperates with this practice because the state will be on the hook otherwise.
https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/fl/pubs/defacto
You can now be forced to pay child support - including for kids that aren't your own kids - without ever being married.
There are people who'll do anything for money. Some of those people are women, and occasionally a man succeeds at this too. Children are a way to extract large amounts of money over time from partners. The state cooperates with this practice because the state will be on the hook otherwise.
Where's the contradiction? No sympathy for those that don't marry, sympathy for those that do.
[deleted]
I don’t believe my citations are wrong, nor that they’re out of context as it relates to demographic trends, but you’re free to provide your own if you have them.
Additional citations below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UThiu3Q_NcQ
https://19thnews.org/2025/09/poll-traditional-family-gender-...
https://19thnews.org/2025/09/polling-2025/
Additional citations below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UThiu3Q_NcQ
https://19thnews.org/2025/09/poll-traditional-family-gender-...
https://19thnews.org/2025/09/polling-2025/
Its not your citations that are wrong, regardless of quality or bias I'm sure they back up your opinion.
It's your opinion that I take issue with.
It's your opinion that I take issue with.
Your thoughts of my opinions and mental models are irrelevant to me, but of course you’re free to comment as much as you’d like and mods will allow. I take no offense because I do not care, and no offense is intended in informing.
You're irrelevant to everything
Strongly agree, we all are.
I was honored that you featured me as "ignore" in your profile for the short time it lasted.
> If women feel like it is no longer safe to marry because they will be forced into equal custody, those rates would decline
IIUC, the new neutral bias applies regardless of marriage.
If a woman is looking to create a kid whom she has sole custody of, then what she is really looking for is a DIY sperm donor. I'm sure there are plenty of men downright eager to sign a contract relinquishing any paternity claim/liability as a condition of dating.
If you're talking about cases where a woman wants to create a kid, while retaining a unilateral ability to choose whether to have the man in the kid's life or not? That is a terrible dynamic and is exactly what needed reform.
IIUC, the new neutral bias applies regardless of marriage.
If a woman is looking to create a kid whom she has sole custody of, then what she is really looking for is a DIY sperm donor. I'm sure there are plenty of men downright eager to sign a contract relinquishing any paternity claim/liability as a condition of dating.
If you're talking about cases where a woman wants to create a kid, while retaining a unilateral ability to choose whether to have the man in the kid's life or not? That is a terrible dynamic and is exactly what needed reform.
> I'm sure there are plenty of men downright eager to sign a contract relinquishing any paternity claim/liability as a condition of dating.
Are there?
I don't know. I don't think most men are as mercenary as that.
As someone who was literally offered this situation (a lesbian couple I was friends with that wanted a child) I can say that it simply wasn't something I could seriously consider.
How could I exist knowing that I had a child that I had little or no relationship with? A child who would constantly wonder about their father and why I wasn't part of their life?
I don't think it's just me, I think most guys would have a problem with that.
And maybe the ones that don't wouldn't be the best choice for being a father?
Are there?
I don't know. I don't think most men are as mercenary as that.
As someone who was literally offered this situation (a lesbian couple I was friends with that wanted a child) I can say that it simply wasn't something I could seriously consider.
How could I exist knowing that I had a child that I had little or no relationship with? A child who would constantly wonder about their father and why I wasn't part of their life?
I don't think it's just me, I think most guys would have a problem with that.
And maybe the ones that don't wouldn't be the best choice for being a father?
Sperm donors exist. It doesn't need to be most, or even that many. When I wrote my comment I was thinking of the many young guys that don't want to be trapped into settling down, but I agree when it comes down to it it is a much bigger mental hurdle knowing that the intent is to definitely produce a child.
> If women feel like it is no longer safe to marry because they will be forced into equal custody, those rates would decline.
What kind of a batshit characterization of women is this? You think women will only marry a man if they are guaranteed custody of any potential children in a potential divorce?
What kind of a batshit characterization of women is this? You think women will only marry a man if they are guaranteed custody of any potential children in a potential divorce?
It is my belief, in the American macro of policy, it is simply rational and prudent for women to avoid marriage and children whenever possible (as a practitioner in risk management, assessing and managing risk, and a rationalist) so long as the policy is what it is. My opinion would change if the policy, macro, and experience changes and failure modes are less brutal (there’s ~$100B in child support debt outstanding, single parent outcomes are suboptimal, 23 million children live in a single parent home, etc). But as it stands, you’re setting yourself up for failure by entertaining marriage (considering 40-50% failure rates for first marriages) and children (two incomes required, $330k to raise a child 0-18 in 2023 dollars excluding daycare and college). The median household income in Kentucky as of this comment is ~$62k/year. Half of all violent crime in Kentucky over the last six years was domestic violence of both men and women. Returning to the labor force as a stay at home parent (if divorce occurs), regardless of gender, is challenging at best. Might as well skydive without a parachute and hope you’re lucky enough to fall into a tree.
People change as well. Who you marry is potentially not who you want or need a divorce from. Sometimes the economic unpleasantness can be avoided with prenups, but this is much more rare than it should be. Choices can lead to substantial long term obligations and liability, binding for one to two decades, and I think better choices can be made (based on the evidence and the data).
My opinions in this thread are not gender driven, but data driven.
(~40% of pregnancies in the US are unintended every year as well, per the Guttmacher Institute, although I don’t have Kentucky specific numbers at hand in that context)
People change as well. Who you marry is potentially not who you want or need a divorce from. Sometimes the economic unpleasantness can be avoided with prenups, but this is much more rare than it should be. Choices can lead to substantial long term obligations and liability, binding for one to two decades, and I think better choices can be made (based on the evidence and the data).
My opinions in this thread are not gender driven, but data driven.
(~40% of pregnancies in the US are unintended every year as well, per the Guttmacher Institute, although I don’t have Kentucky specific numbers at hand in that context)
Nervhq(1)
For most men, marriage is one of the most unwise actions they can legally take in their life. This is due to it being co-opted by the state for its own purposes. Society needs a new word and a new social status for the element of marriage, but without its legal standing, e.g. "maritage" (signifying the heritage of marriage).
It's always been co-opted. It's just now it's a way worse deal than it used to be.
in germany, living together already forces you into most of the obligations you'd have when married. especially when you have children. but worse, you have less rights. unlike a divorce, shared custody is not automatically assumed, and you are less likely to get it. (it used to be that the mother could simply deny it but that changed 15 years ago)
What's the source on this?
I know it's a thing in Canada, Australia, and Washington state (if you cohabitate for some number of years, they can claim that it's a "de-facto relationship" and get property division). Apparently the current UK government is trying to push it
I looked up for Germany and found nothing
I know it's a thing in Canada, Australia, and Washington state (if you cohabitate for some number of years, they can claim that it's a "de-facto relationship" and get property division). Apparently the current UK government is trying to push it
I looked up for Germany and found nothing
i could have sworn that this would be the case in germany too. but it turns out that there are practically no rights or obligations on separation except child support. property division only happens if both partners made a significant contribution, eg to a house. so if you pay for half of the house you can assume shared ownership of that house, but you may have to fight for it in court. you have to pay child support because it is the right of the child, which exists regardless of the relationship of the parents. another exception is financial support from the government. for that the income of your unmarried partner will be considered if you live in the same household, but that is obviously not relevant on separation.
the keyword to look up is "Eheähnliche Gemeinschaft".
the keyword to look up is "Eheähnliche Gemeinschaft".
I agree with the sentiment of this but I don't think the root issue is state involvement
The root issue is that the state is involved in the wrong way. It refuses to fund childcare, so marriage is economically incentivized.
But then it makes divorce super financially one-sided and easy to get, so now high earners will try to avoid marriage. But high earners are the ones who make marriage worthwhile, per the above point
Then it has LGBT acceptance in urban centers now, so there's an easy, convenient, and legally protected way for people to avoid the whole marriage pipeline
The only real fix we have for this is to just import more people, who knows whether that will pan out
In general though, I agree with the sentiment that for high earning men it's the shittiest deal imaginable and even the extreme option of dying alone is better
The root issue is that the state is involved in the wrong way. It refuses to fund childcare, so marriage is economically incentivized.
But then it makes divorce super financially one-sided and easy to get, so now high earners will try to avoid marriage. But high earners are the ones who make marriage worthwhile, per the above point
Then it has LGBT acceptance in urban centers now, so there's an easy, convenient, and legally protected way for people to avoid the whole marriage pipeline
The only real fix we have for this is to just import more people, who knows whether that will pan out
In general though, I agree with the sentiment that for high earning men it's the shittiest deal imaginable and even the extreme option of dying alone is better
In a non common law marriage state you can probably have a wedding, say your vows, and live as man and bride. Consult a lawyer for local gotchas.
France has the legal status of living in concubinage, so man and concubine. Pretty much the same as live-in girlfriend.
Some terms that could work: Man and bride Concubine Wedded/conjugal/nuptial state/union This is my wedded bride. This is my wedded man. etc.
France has the legal status of living in concubinage, so man and concubine. Pretty much the same as live-in girlfriend.
Some terms that could work: Man and bride Concubine Wedded/conjugal/nuptial state/union This is my wedded bride. This is my wedded man. etc.
blindriver(2)
gjsman-1000(6)