Why did she keep the house and kids?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Mrs. Doubtfire
rpe78 — 9 years ago(September 02, 2016 12:47 PM)
It's obvious she was the primary source of income in the home while Daniel stayed with the kids most of the time, so why did Daniel get kicked out and lose custody? If it were reversed and Daniel was making the money he'd have to leave and he'd have to pay alimony. She didn't even have to pay alimony, that's messed up.
-
NobodymournstheWicked — 9 years ago(September 04, 2016 06:38 PM)
I would think it would be obvious to everybody expect for you, but during the scene you ask about the judge mentions that at the present time he had no place to live, and no empoylement, and that is why he awarded sole custody to Miranda. What was he supposed to do give custody full to Daniel and the kids get to become homeless, and how would he have supported them? When a husband and wife gets divorced, one has to move out of the home, not too often you would see them both get a divorce and stay in the same home, other then in the tv series Happily Divorced. Bur if you also remember the judge gave Daniel 3 months to get a job, keep and it create a suitable home he would grant joint custody to both of them.
-
alzanden-1 — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 06:11 PM)
Daniel was unemployed so he wouldn't have been able to even afford that house. Because this was more than 20 years ago, it was pretty standard for the woman to get primary custody, but even today, with no job currently, there is no way he would get primary custody, and generally whoever has the kids, stays in the marital home so life if not too disrupted for the kids.
If it was her salary that primarily paid the mortgage, why would it be fair to kick her out of the house she paid for? And if they kicked Miranda out of the house, she wouldn't have a place to live just as Daniel didnt. Somebody has to go, when they get divorced. I've never known of a divorced couple to continue living together. -
peeaecee — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 07:48 PM)
Here's a thought: In the aftermath of the movie, depending on how big his show gets, and the other opportunities that might stem from it, he might end up becoming a big-time actor (kind of like that universe's version of Robin Williams) and end up
outearning
her. Man, those kids are going to be spoiled (in the good way, of course). -
LukeLovesFilm28 — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 04:10 PM)
Ok. Still doesn't make it right that women get custody without having a job or a stable home but dad gets completely fcked, no matter what. Hell, a guy can't just take his kids away from an abusive, dangerous mom without there being kidnapping charges placed on his head.
Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin. -
preachcaleb — 9 years ago(November 10, 2016 11:09 AM)
Well, when she's the one who carried and pushed out those children, allowances can be made.
Hell, a guy can't just take his kids away from an abusive, dangerous mom without there being kidnapping charges placed on his head.
Neither can a woman without either proving it.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead. -
tle_mgr — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 04:04 PM)
They often just give up or they have lawyers who don't think men should own anything but the shirt on their backs.
In reality, if the woman is the primary source of income, everything is in your favor as far as property.
If you spend more time with the kids (doing homework, cooking for them, taking care of them when they are sick etc.) then you will get custody too.
Money doesn't factor into anything, because the femin*azis whined that it put women at a disadvantage.
So the rule is custody is in the best interest of the child. Meaning who spends more time with them.
So when dumb guys decide they don't want to fight for property or custody, they end up getting beep