======================================================================================
...And if you disapprove of ALL of the government's attempts to do the right thing, then what WOULD you suggest they do? I saw a recent post where you suggested the government shoudl get OUT of divorce? How do you propose this shoudl happen? You get to walk out on your wife, leave her destitute if you're in the mood to do so, hiding all the money, never pay her a cent, and see the kids if & when you're in the mood (or if & when she's in the mood to let you?) Government can't get out of divorce until all people are guaranteed to do the right thing with thier own personal divorce issues.
=====================================================================================

There are a few problems with your scheme of letting "the government" make all of these decisions about the private lives of people they aren't related to, don't know and never met before they came to court. If the truth be known, they probably don't particularly care much about them, except to the extent that they may despise them for not being mature enough to be able to work out their own problems, without increasing the court's case load. The courts making these decisions can never know all of the real facts involved in a particular case, as a divorce case is basically just a lieing contest, with no one ever held to account for perjury. The "laws" which are supposed to apply are nothing but a vast maze of conflicting but good sounding "gobbledygook", and the judges certainly don't have the "wisdom of Soliman", but are more likely to apply a "cookie cutter" judgement to all similar cases. This was exposed in a recent posting by theanswerguy in which reference was made to some orders which had been prepared IN ADVANCE for a given case, before the hearing had even been scheduled, and found by accident. Add to all of this the questionable "quid pro quo" involved when one side has retained a law firm which ALWAYS contributes to the election campaigns of ALL local judges, and it's not very hard to see why it is better if people are simply put on their own, in terms of domestic issues, with them required to make their own arrangements.

As I have proposed before here, the government should have to STAY OUT of the private relationships of people except fot the purposes of protection of children and public health. Assurance that both parents would have reasonable visitation rights should be considered as part of the protection of the children involved. If the parents (married, divorced, or never married--it doesn't matter) are incapable of facilitating this basic requirement of the state, then the children should be removed to a foster home. Of course, if a party to a relationship which has produced children remarries --or even marries for the first time--and their spouse is willing to adopt the children, then this represents the formation of a new and different "family" which the state would have an obligation to allow the opportunity to demonstrate that they can take care of the children in question.