After careful consideration, I am no longer partnering with, affiliating with, or lending my voice to any advocacy group or individual whose work centers on blanket “50/50 custody” narratives without addressing power, safety, labor, and lived reality.
Through direct engagement and observation, it has become clear that many of these movements are not primarily focused on the best interests of children, survivors of crime, or genuine equity. Instead, they are often male-centered initiatives that instrumentalize women and people of color for legitimacy. They use women and people of color as proof of “balance” or “unity” to gain access to spaces where women and children’s experiences have historically been centered, while simultaneously minimizing or dismissing those same experiences.
I will not participate in advocacy that treats women or people of color as symbolic tools rather than full human beings with material realities.
How Blanket 50/50 Custody Advocacy Functions
Broad, one-size-fits-all 50/50 custody advocacy frequently serves to:
- Reassert coercive control and male dominance
- Reduce or avoid financial responsibility, including attempts to eliminate child support
- Cast women as dishonest or adversarial by default, enabling avoidance of accountability for abuse
- Create barriers that make it harder for survivors of abuse, coercion, or exploitation to be believed
This is not justice. It is not equity. It is not child-centered. It represents a modern “witch hunt,” where men infiltrate spaces intended for safety and accountability.
The Convenience of “50/50” Without Evidence
A particularly dangerous trend is the increasing demand for automatic or presumptive 50/50 custody without evidentiary scrutiny, even in cases involving intimidation, coercive control, or isolation.
Many women are routinely threatened, surveilled, financially constrained, or socially isolated in ways that make reporting abuse unsafe or impossible. Once these women disengage or escape, the same men often demand 50/50 custody—not to parent, but to maintain access, regain control, or continue coercion through the court system.
In practice, many of these men are not meaningfully fathering. They are compartmentalizing, seeking legal leverage, time credits, or financial relief while outsourcing actual caregiving to another woman. Parenting is treated as a legal position rather than a daily, labor-intensive responsibility.
This is precisely why my Family Court Accountability Act advances the use of a Child Benefit Card.
A Child Benefit Card removes the long-standing excuse that “child support is for women” by ensuring funds are traceable, child-centered, and transparent. It allows courts to see:
- Who actually contributes to daily child-related expenses
- Who bears the ongoing physical, emotional, and economic toll of full-time parenting
- Who participates consistently in caregiving versus who seeks control without accountability
Accountability exposes the truth. Resistance to accountability reveals motive. What often emerges is not concern for children, but anger rooted in the loss of control once financial and relational power can no longer be exercised without oversight.
Gaslighting, Narrative Manipulation, and Cultural Contradictions
There is a coordinated push to gaslight the public into believing that men suffer abuse at the same or higher rates than women and children, while simultaneously advancing narratives about declining birth rates and claims that women are refusing to date or partner.
These narratives cannot logically coexist:
- If women are the primary perpetrators of abuse, why are women also withdrawing from relationships at historic levels?
- If men are equally or more victimized, why do policy demands consistently reduce protections for women and children?
- If male victims are excused for not reporting abuse due to shame, why is that nuance not extended to women and children? Statements like “she’s lying, she never reported before” are contrasted with “he didn’t report because he was embarrassed, so you must believe him.”
The contradiction reveals the strategy: narrative saturation designed to confuse, exhaust, and undermine survivor credibility.
Clarifying My Critique
It is important to note that my critique is not of all 50/50 custody advocacy, nor of individuals who genuinely seek equitable and safe co-parenting arrangements. There are advocates and reformers committed to shared parenting that is child-centered, evidence-based, and protective of survivors. My concern is with patterns and movements where advocacy is used instrumentally—where the push for 50/50 custody is applied without regard to safety, lived realities, or accountability, and where women and people of color are used to legitimize agendas that do not prioritize the child’s or caregiver’s well-being.
While my position may be perceived as uncompromising, it is rooted in principle, not partisanship. My focus is on ensuring that shared parenting policies are implemented safely, equitably, and in a manner that does not exploit survivors. I welcome collaboration with advocates, policymakers, and parents who share these values, regardless of political affiliation, provided child safety and caregiver accountability are central.
Proposals like the Child Benefit Card are designed to enhance transparency and accountability, not penalize vulnerable parents. Proper implementation would include privacy safeguards, secure tracking mechanisms, and equitable access for all caregivers. The goal is to make contributions and caregiving responsibilities visible to the courts, enabling evidence-based decisions about time, support, and shared responsibility, while protecting families’ privacy and safety.
I support children.
I support survivors.
I support real solutions rooted in evidence and lived reality, not optics.
My work will continue independently, grounded in lived experience, intersectional analysis, and a commitment to protecting women and children from systemic harm. I will not support or engage in movements that prioritize control, finances, or image.
This boundary is intentional, principled, and final until further notice.
2025 Fact Sheet from National Network to End Domestic Violence
The fallacy that men are being abused by women at the same rate that men abuse men, women and children is a dangerous trope being used by these “50/50 custody” organizations led by men.
I ask you reading right now a very serious question. When you tell your loved ones to be safe, who are you implying the danger will come from? A bear, a woman, a dog or a man?
I now challenge you to:
Name one war started by women.
Name one hate group led by women.
Name one woman who raped a man and forced him to make her have the baby and get sole custody OR 50/50 custody.
Name one terrorism group led by women.
Name one woman caught undressing in a boy’s/men’s locker room.
Name one dating app that women shut down because gay men said they wanted to date “real men”.
Name one news story where the wife/mother killed her whole family because her personal trainer was younger and “hotter”.
Your answers should remain at the forefront when met with a group of men trying to gaslight you into thinking they are suffering from greater harm than they cause.
We must reject movements that seek to infiltrate the safety of others simply because they lose access to cause harm.