Parental Rights
The case of Misbah Rana has been hailed as another confrontation between the East and the West(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6201354.stm). It is nothing more than a straight custody fight. Well a nasty custody fight. Yes it is true that one parent comes from Pakistan and the other from the UK but this case has as much to do with the clash of civilizations as the O.J. case had to do with race. The invective and the drama hurled by each side is no better and no worse than that hurled in thousands of custodial fights every year. Should she have been taken out of the country while the mother had the custody? No. Should the mother's side have raised the spectre of child marriage? No. Should the media have presented the sides as they did? No. Why must it be so easy to believe for so many people that the reason must surely be child marriage? Does it happen? Yes. This is a world issue. Right now there is a case in the US going on about a cult leader involved not only in child marriages but polygamy. Yet no one would seriously consider that a child taken to the US was taken there for that purpose. It may happen but is an unlikely event.
The custodial fight has become a phenomenon in itself. Who should have the custody? While the law in many western countries says that the rights of parents are equal, in practice they are anything but. Most decisions go in favor of the mother because in the mind of the society and the judges (who are a product of the society) there is a proclivity to side with the mother.
The current setup needs to be revisited. It is more dysfunctional than the dysfunctional family (ex-family?) it is designed for, essentially concentrating almost all authority in the hands of one parent while making the other one financially responsible. If the two parents hate each others guts then who do you think comes out on top and how does it make the other party feel. If fathers abandon responsibility they are labelled deadbeats, if mothers give up their children for adoption because they feel unable to take care of their children they are hailed as responsible. The answer is to have equal custodial rights. The argument that one parent's control is better for the child is fatuous. It is not if the parents are feuding and making the child choose sides. The only way both parents can feel some sense of fairness is when they have equal access and equal rights to the child. This may even mellow out some of the bitterness (don't count on it though). If the feuding sides cannot agree on how to share (and let's face it that's why they are in the courts) then the courts must do it but they must do so with equality and justice for all sides.