Quoting Chroma Hex [+1]:" Simply because she's the mother?"

I posted a little further down.
If she's not unfit, what would be the reasoning for taking them away? Money isn't everything and a step-mom doesn't replace mom. I'm assuming the dad isn't around all the time either...

Money shouldn't be the issue because the dad should be supporting the kids in combination with whatever the mom makes as a team. As far as where they live, it depends on a bunch of stuff. Like for example ... the school system in the towns they live in, how old the kids are, if the mom is breastfeeding,etc.

Quoting Chroma Hex [+1]:" So you're saying that the mother has something the father can't give the children, then?"

Not exactly...but the mother gave birth. There is a definite strong bond in MOST cases. And I do think that it's stronger than ones with dads.

Quoting Summerfrost:" Money shouldn't be the issue because the dad should be supporting the kids in combination with whatever ... [snip!] ... Like for example ... the school system in the towns they live in, how old the kids are, if the mom is breastfeeding,etc. "

The question is PURELY based on the environment they can provide for the children. It's a hypothetical case.

Quoting Chroma Hex [+1]:" The question is PURELY based on the environment they can provide for the children. It's a hypothetical case."

Wouldn't a better school system be part of the environment?

Quoting Summerfrost:" Wouldn't a better school system be part of the environment?"

Not the home environment, no. Please stick to the OP, because you're asking questions that I can't answer. This isn't a real case, and there's no reason to over complicate it.

Quoting Chroma Hex [+1]:" The question is PURELY based on the environment they can provide for the children. It's a hypothetical case."

Well, if the mother was granted custody, the father would have to pay child support. One would assume the additional funds would help her provide more for the children.

You described a friend of mine's situation almost exactly.

She lived with her mother and they stayed at their father's house pretty much every weekend.

I'd say tie goes to the mother.

It would depend on way too many things. We are the "father" in the same situation and we did win custody. Joint custody is not an option for us. But where we live gives more opportunities for my step child as he grows up. We have a higher income. We don't have to scrape by. And also, we have his sibling.

I say father. Dads home environment sound better off emotionally for the children. I am a firm believer that moms should nt get custody jut because they are mothers.

Mother. Because, I am a mother, and I'll be damned if anyone ever takes my child away from me just because they have more money than I do.

Thank you to the people that answered the question under the guidelines given.

The point was not to mimic real custody laws. Of course in real life, the father would at least pay child support if they didn't approve joint custody. The question was really simple and a lot of people over thought it.

The discussion actually came from a conversation I had with a few people, and most of you supported their answers. I didn't want to make the mother's situation just terrible in order to provide a blatant bias, but the general consensus of most people in my area is that the mother should usually get the children, almost always full-time with visitation, despite whether or not the father has a much better living condition.

If I had said the mother was impoverished and had a hard time dealing with the child(ren), would that have affected anyone's answer?

Quoting Chroma Hex [+1]:" Thank you to the people that answered the question under the guidelines given. The point was not to ... [snip!] ... had said the mother was impoverished and had a hard time dealing with the child(ren), would that have affected anyone's answer?"

Depends on what you mean by impoverished and had a hard time dealing with the children? If she's an addict of any sort (except for smoking) then no, she doesn't need custody of the children. And if she's any sort of abusive or neglectful in any way, then Dad should get custody. Otherwise (as I originally voted for Mom) if she was clean, sober and doing her best to be supportive of her children, then no...she doesn't deserve to loose custody over her children because their Dad makes more money and has a replacement Mommy.

I think too many of the people are replying because they as mothers would not want their children taken. But thinking as the child. Dad has a much more stable environment . In his house the children probably have more parent interaction. Also what about things like things like extracurricular activities and tutoring - all expensive. Children need programs like that and even if the mom can pay for that stuff , can she attend the programs?

Quoting Buzz and Almond Joys momm:" I think too many of the people are replying because they as mothers would not want their children taken. ... [snip!] ... - all expensive. Children need programs like that and even if the mom can pay for that stuff , can she attend the programs?"

Exactly.

People keep saying that money shouldn't be a factor in custody, but I think it most certainly is.

Would they give a mother joint custody if she were homeless? No. What about if she was on housing assistance and had one bedroom, no job, and multiple kids? No. Money does not equate to love, but when it comes down to one parent struggling and one parent being able to effortless care for the child, I think the whole stigma of "children need to be with their mother" thing needs to be abolished.

I've seen many a good father not have access to their kids in the south because the mother can almost get away with murder,here. It's sickening. There are young women (I know TWO personally) that got married while pregnant just so that the baby's father wouldn't have any rights to them.