Connect with us

Lifestyle

Do Mothers Get Child Custody More Often Than Fathers?

mm

Published

on

Many people assume that mothers have the upper hand over fathers in custody battles, but this is not always the case. 

In this article, we’ll go over why many assume that the mother always gets custody, how things are different today, and what judges really consider when granting custody rights.

Let’s get started!

Why many assume mothers get custody

In the past, mothers were almost always the primary caregivers of their children. So it made sense to give them custody (instead of giving it to fathers).

Plus, for many decades family law followed the “tender years” doctrine, which dates back to the late 19th century and states that children need their mother during their early, developmental years. Most fathers didn’t contest.

But today, there are no laws that codify a gender preference in who should gain custody over a child. And while it’s true that historically mothers were nearly always guaranteed to win custody battles, this is increasingly no longer the case. 

How things are different today

Modern gender roles have evolved. Today, there are more women in the US college-educated labor force than men, and young women are out-earning young men in several US states.

Now that more women enter (and excel in) the workforce, the idea that they are always the primary caretaker no longer holds. 

Some couples share equal responsibility in taking care of the kids and providing. In some households, women are even the main breadwinner. Since 1967, the share of breadwinning or co-breadwinning mothers has more than doubled.

What this means for custody battles is that fathers are often just as good, if not better, at taking care of their children. As a result, many men are being awarded full or equal split custody.

That said, the mother is often still favored in custody battles that involve very young children. For example, if a baby relies on the mother for breastfeeding, she will more than likely gain custody. However, if the infant is bottle-fed, a father may have just as good a chance at winning custody since they can do the job just as well.

It all depends on what the best interests of the child are.

What the judge considers when granting custody

To determine how to split custody rights, a judge will take many factors into consideration. Here are just a few:

  • Which parent is most able to provide a safe and stable environment for the child?
  • Which parent can provide for the child financially and physically in terms of essentials, like food, shelter, medical care, clothes, and so on?
  • What is the state of each parent’s mental health, criminal record, and personal habits?
  • Where does the child want to live?
  • How old is the child and do they have special physical or mental needs?
  • Will the child have to move and adjust to a new city, school, friends, and quality of life?
  • Did either parent bring false or malicious charges of child abuse against the other? Is either motivated to gain custody only to lash out at the other parent?
  • What is the child’s relationship like to each parent? Has either parent ever abandoned the child? 

The list goes on, but you get the idea. When parents fight over custody rights, the judge weighs all the factors above to determine where the child would do best.

The final verdict

At the end of the day, child custody decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Most result in partial custody to both parents, but not always.

On average, mothers are still granted around 65% of custody time, while fathers are given around 35%. 

Whether you are a father or a mother trying to win custody rights, try to maintain a civil and respectful relationship with the other parent at all times. Being vengeful will only hurt your case. Be sure to maintain a positive relationship with your child as well.

Lastly, it pays to consult an experienced family law attorney who can help you know your rights and give you the best chance of winning custody over your child.

Michelle has been a part of the journey ever since Bigtime Daily started. As a strong learner and passionate writer, she contributes her editing skills for the news agency. She also jots down intellectual pieces from categories such as science and health.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Lifestyle

The Future of Youth Horror Gaming: Lonely Rabbit’s Midnight Strikes

mm

Published

on

Credit: Lonely Rabbit

Empty hallways echo with footsteps that aren’t yours. The carnival rides spin without passengers. Familiar spaces, the ones etched into childhood memory, twist into something menacing, something that watches. Lonely Rabbit’s Midnight Strikes arrives eight months before its completion, targeting a youth horror genre that is hungry for experiences that feel personal rather than purely fantastical. The indie studio searches for a publisher while building momentum for a game that weaponizes nostalgia, turning high schools and carnivals into theaters of psychological dread. As franchises age and audiences demand fresh scares, this PC title tests whether memory-based terror represents the next chapter in youth horror.​

Maturing Past Jump Scares

Youth horror gaming shed its training wheels. Little Nightmares and Bendy and the Ink Machine proved that younger players crave atmospheric storytelling over cheap shocks, puzzle-solving over gore, and visual distinctiveness over recycled formulas. Bendy’s ink-soaked corridors attracted a massive audience, including children drawn to the characters despite the T-rating, because the experience felt emotionally authentic rather than condescending. Players now expect psychological tension woven through environmental details, stories told through decaying spaces, and cryptic objects scattered across levels.​

The genre’s maturation reflects audiences who grew up solving Portal’s test chambers and exploring Limbo’s monochrome nightmares. Among the Sleep demonstrated the potency of perspective: experiencing horror through a toddler’s eyes made familiar domestic spaces feel uncanny and threatening. Fran Bow plunged players into hand-drawn asylum corridors where perception itself became unreliable, where puzzles demanded engagement with trauma and grief rather than simple pattern recognition. Modern youth horror respects its audience enough to disturb them thoughtfully, creating experiences that linger days after the screen goes dark.​

Corrupted Childhood as New Territory

Midnight Strikes drags players through levels “reminiscent of their childhood memories”: the high school, the carnival, spaces universal enough to feel personal. Lonely Rabbit constructs what they describe as a “menacingly beautiful atmosphere filled with bizarre and terrifying creatures,” pairing monster survival with puzzle challenges that prioritize mood over mechanics. The game adopts a “cinematic and otherworldly feel” while grounding its terror in locations players actually inhabited, making fear feel intimate rather than abstract.​

This memory-based direction distinguishes Midnight Strikes from fantasy settings that dominate youth horror. Deserted carnival rides and empty school corridors carry weight because players recognize them as such. Maybe the locker rows feel too narrow, maybe the Ferris wheel groans with a voice that shouldn’t exist, maybe the cafeteria smells wrong. The game challenges players to “survive their fear of the unknown” while navigating spaces that should feel known, creating cognitive dissonance that amplifies dread. Other developers exploring similar territory, such as Subliminal, which utilizes “nostalgic spaces” and “a rotting feeling that something is not quite right,” suggest that childhood corruption represents an emerging subgenre.​​

Lonely Rabbit’s approach weaponizes personal history. Every player attended school, visited carnivals, and formed memories in spaces designed for safety and joy. Corrupting those spaces turns nostalgia into a threat, asking audiences to confront distorted versions of their own experiences. The monsters inhabiting these environments become more than obstacles; they represent the fear that familiar places might betray us, that memory itself becomes unreliable when shadows move in the wrong direction.​

Smaller Teams, Bigger Risks

Indie studios like Lonely Rabbit maneuver where larger publishers hesitate. Their two-month publisher search and pre-launch community building reflect changing pathways for games that defy established franchise formulas. Building a follower base before release creates market validation, proving that audiences want what you’re making before significant capital is committed. Transparency about development timelines and production milestones generates audience investment, turning potential players into advocates during the publisher search.​

Midnight Strikes represents creative gambles major studios avoid when quarterly earnings loom. Smaller teams experiment with concepts, corrupted childhood spaces, memory-based horror, pand sychological tension prioritized over action mechanics, that might fracture focus groups but resonate with underserved audiences. Lonely Rabbit’s global distribution ambitions demonstrate indie confidence: build something distinctive enough, and geography becomes irrelevant when digital storefronts erase borders.​

The next eight months determine whether Midnight Strikes defines a subgenre or remains an interesting experiment. If players respond to horror that mines personal history, if corrupted nostalgia proves more terrifying than fantasy monsters, other developers will follow this path. Lonely Rabbit’s gamble, that childhood spaces make better horror stages than alien planets or demon dimensions, could redefine what scares young players next. The studio’s publisher search tests whether the industry views memory-based terror as the future of youth horror or a niche curiosity. Either outcome writes the next page in a genre still learning what it can become.

Continue Reading

Trending