Nobody wants to pay child support. But the truth is: somebody has to. In fact, 99% of all arguments surrounding children and custody come down to this one point.

And yes, men still earn more than women in most cases. That’s not an opinion. That’s statistics. Blame society if you like, but don’t deny the imbalance.

Still, I wonder: Where are the studies on the other side? Where is the data on children growing up without their mothers? Where are the long-term reflections on how men and women cope after breakups?

Let’s be honest: Judges aren’t stupid. They know the social landscape, the psychological games, the emotional toll of separation.

They also know the science: Men often show a fight-or-flight response under stress. They may react aggressively or they withdraw. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to show a tend-and-befriend pattern, reaching out, bonding, stabilizing.

That’s not a stereotype. That’s observed, researched, and repeated across studies.

And how about people who work in family law and see this pattern every day? They see how some fathers withdraw the moment they feel they’ve "lost the case". How they disengage, not because they’re legally banned from caring, but because they feel disempowered… and maybe also because they are already paying child support.

But here's the real question: Is it always the mother’s fault when fathers disappear? Does a court decision saying “the children will stay with the mother” erase the father? Or is it that some fathers vanish themselves, suddenly or slowly, when parenting no longer fits into their world, their structure, or their idea of masculinity?

The truth is: This problem is more complex than the usual debates on custody make it seem. And no court order alone explains why emotional and practical bonds break apart. It’s about responsibility, identity, societal roles... and yes, money too.

Well some children sadly grow up without their mothers which is just as damaging. However this is not as common in a legal context. I grew up without my father because he was denied his right to fatherhood in court. Something that affected my whole life. I refuse to have any contact with my mother since my father commited suicide as a consequence of him and me being denied the right to each other. This is why 50/50 or even better, to save the marriage is a better option for the child.. as long as both parents are adult rnough to understand the right of the child to BOTH parents. Warm wishes Henrik.

Hendrik, your mom surely had her reasons to break up with your father. If he committed suicide there must have been some serious mental issues before which made it for your mother perhaps not possible anymore to live with him. You are looking at the whole situation through the eyes of a child. Suicide is never the outcome of just one event in a person's live. Many people suffer for years from mental issues before they commit suicide. Your mother perhaps did the right thing. She provided you a home in which you could grow and build a stable life for yourself. You do not know how your father's problem could have effected your life. You just believe it might have been better or more positive. But this man had severe problems. And I think you have no idea how it is to deal with a family member with mental issues. This is neither your mother's fault, nor is it your fault. And perhaps even if you had contact you could not have prevent it. Also no child should be put in the situation to be a parents therapist, Hendrik. Ask your mother about the situation as long as you have the chance.

My mother is mental ill. It affected the whole family. I struggled a lot as a child and no, she had no logical reasons, but this is deeply personal. Her mental illness affected my whole childhood and her winning sole custody in court affected the whole family. I ended up living with my maternal grand parents, who became my parents and yes, they distanced them selves from my mother after my father suicide. It affected my whole family.

What you've experienced is deeply painful, and no one should have to go through what you did. Your personal story deserves compassion. And it is clear how strongly it has shaped your view.

But this creates a serious problem: You frame a highly personal, emotionally charged experience as scientific evidence. That is not responsible. What you describe falls under what is called anecdotal bias, where individual experiences are generalized far beyond their context. It easily feeds into confirmation bias, where only those observations that fit one's view are noticed or selected.

You are not wrong to speak about pain and injustice, but this is not a neutral paper. It reads like a personal opinion dressed in academic terms. And because it appears in a public, scientific forum, readers (especially those without training in psychology or law) might mistake it for objective truth.

The consequences of that can be harmful. We all have a responsibility when publishing under the banner of research, especially when dealing with emotionally and socially complex issues like custody, suicide, or mental illness. Simplifying those dynamics into 'legalized fatherlessness' risks reinforcing gender stereotypes, stigmatizing mothers, and misleading the public.

Science must reflect complexity, not reduce it to personal battles with the past. If you want to advocate for change, that is valid, but it must be grounded in balanced evidence, not personal loss.

What I would strongly suggest is to make much clearer that your article stems from a personal perspective, grounded in your own lived experience. That kind of personal narrative can then be valuable and insightful, especially when shared openly and reflectively.

Please consider: You have not only lost your father, you have lost both parents.

One thing stood out to me: You mention that you ended up living with your grandparents (not with your father) even though, by your own words, he was eager to stay involved. That suggests there were other serious dynamics at play, possibly beyond just court bias. It also seems important to consider that this was a new situation, one that followed the original court ruling.

So it leaves me wondering: If your father had brought the case back to court at that point would the outcome have been different? Would the courts perhaps have decided in his favour under the new circumstances?

Its actually not Im describing a real and scientifically proven issue, same as I did when I wrote about women in IT. Legal system bias and personal experiences are two separate issues.