If you have divorced in the state of Oregon and are the non-custodial parent, then you probably have experienced first-hand the inequity that exists in divorce and child custody cases. If you are the father who has gone through the courts in a custody dispute, nine times out of ten you will not be allowed full custody.

The child custody law in Oregon states that if one parent doesn't agree to all stipulations of a joint custody arrangement, a judge cannot award joint custody and therefore must award sole custody to one parent.

The result of a sole custody award is that one parent has virtually maximum legal authority of a child, leaving the non-custodial parent with a small list of marginalized rights. Your rights as a non-custodial parent allow you only to inspect documentation and consult staff associated with your child's education, medical, and government records. Non-custodial parents can only authorize emergency medical, dental, psychological, and psychiatric or other health care if the custodial parent is unavailable. In addition, the non-custodial parent may apply to be the child's conservator, guardian ad litem or both.

That's it. No more, no less. There is no glorifying the marginalized role of the non-custodial parent.

This being the deplorable circumstance that it is, I ask myself, "Why should any parent, mother or father, be reduced to that type of relationship with their child?"

Do we want to support a law that claims its decisions are made in the best interests of the child, but does not allow an order of joint custody when one party doesn't agree? A law that strips the rights of one parent over the sole authority of the other?

Wouldn't it be more ethical when we claim a decision is made in the best interests of the child that we at least have all the custody options on the table?

So what's a father to do if he wants to be involved in the upbringing of his child?

In cases where the mother wants to regulate the relationship of the child with the father, the father needs to have sole custody.

Not until the laws exist to support fathers equally, will fathers really have equal weight in the eyes of society and the courts, and only then will they be considered equal partners in the raising of their children. Only then, a father will have no need to "win" sole custody of his children in order to protect his relationship with them.

So, I am being sarcastic when I say:

Gee, Oregon, thanks for making the options so black and white by not having laws where one parent can be legally disenfranchised without being considered unfit.

And thanks, for not allowing all options on the table, making custody an even more polarizing issue than divorce already is.

And another big thanks, for saying that the court shall give primary consideration to the best interests and welfare of the child, when in actuality the mother gets sole custody virtually 85 percent of the time when she doesn't want to settle for joint custody.

I didn't know it was in the best interests of children to have one parent legally disenfranchised and be ordered or have to settle for a marginalizing parenting plan.

I'd rather be thanking you earnestly when the state legislature passes a law like one of those 20 proposed Senate and House Bills of the past 10 years, which advocated for at least the presumption of joint custody.

Progressive state? Where? Children with non-custodial parents don't see it.