Construction loan - Ex-partner does not pay his share

No? But the children usually see it differently.

So the first one is allowed to move out "without consequences," but the second (= the mother) abandons the children.
Dad could have taken the children in, right?
It doesn't matter anyway; it's an automatic process here in our society. The father is gladly allowed to leave, but the mother is supposed to stay with the children until the end of days.

Is there such an automatism?
I think that every story is absolutely different and moreover involves very different people and dependencies.
This sounds very complicated in any case, and I believe that from the outside you can only recognize about 10% of what exactly drives an individual to such a seemingly strange action.
In principle, the children should be excluded from the decisions since they are not allowed to decide anyway and shouldn't have to choose between father or mother.
That just doesn't work!

Dad could have taken the kids in, right?
Doesn't matter anyway, it's an automatism here in our society. The father is gladly allowed to leave, the mother is supposed to stay with the children until the end of all days.

I believe many fathers would like to take the children in. But in all cases in the extended circle of acquaintances, the mother got the children because otherwise they would have no income and be penniless. One of them is using child support from three fathers to pay for hobbies like motorcycling... Sorry, but courts still rule in favor of the mother like in the Middle Ages.

In our case, I was coldly exploited by my own father. Wrongly advised? No, rather in the end the realization and disbelief that morality and law have nothing to do with each other.

But you wouldn’t have used "morality" as an argument in a legal dispute, would you? It is very good and right that only laws, and not morality or, even more exaggerated, religion, are the basis for judges' decisions.

I believe many fathers would like to take in the children. But in all cases within the extended circle of acquaintances, the mother got the children because otherwise they would have no income and be penniless. One of them uses child support from three fathers to pay for hobbies like motorcycling.... Sorry, but courts still currently rule in favor of the mother like in the Middle Ages.

certainly correct. My original comment referred to the post by , who said the mother had abandoned the children, one of whom is not yet of legal age. I got stuck on that. After all, the father apparently left first.

The children usually see that differently.

You can't just say that in general. For example, I would have been extremely happy if one parent had moved out. Discussions about who has let whom down here do not belong here. The original poster told us the story from her perspective, and to that story I can only offer the following advice: get legal advice. You don't have to sue right away, but at least I would want to know what my options are.

It is very good and right that only laws, and not morality or exaggeratedly even religion, are the basis for judges' decisions.

I know what you mean and I basically agree with you, but that is unfortunately phrased poorly, because of course our laws are based on values and thus on morality. And ultimately they even rely on religious rules: You shall not steal, you shall not kill, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor... What you mean is that it does not depend on the morality of an individual person or small group but has gone through the democratic legislative process.