Yeah. All of which no doubt would've come up at trial. Along with his various firings.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

She paid for that house. She probably was the one cleaning that house. She was certainly the only one being a parent - he was too busy being Fun! Dad! to be a real father.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

The only place he had to live was with his brother and brother-in-law, Frank and Jack.

That actually makes a lot of sense, if the roles were reversed the guy would still get thrown out of the house and lose the kids. Just shows how beep up the court system is.

The house is in her name and he lost his job and could not hold down a job at the time.

That's my issue, he has no place to live so why is he the one that has to leave the house? when that happens to women they never get kicked out of the house.

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.