When the dad is absent in a boy's life

A Florida appeal court ruled:

The father [petitioned] for modification of the final [custody] judgment, requesting primary residential custody of their [15-year-old] son.... the trial court based its ruling on evidence that the father was more likely to ensure the child was engaged in productive, normal, and healthy extracurricular activities, and the child would benefit from a greater male influence in his life. The trial court concluded that the child's development was "disturbingly retarded." It went on to find that the child possessed unreasonable fears for his age, and had "unmanlike" toilet behavior.

Footnote: The child would sit to urinate and was self-conscious about urinating in the woods during excursions with the father.

So the trial court favored letting the dad teach the boy to urinate like a man, but the appeal court did not agree with "the father's or trial court's perception of manliness." It ruled against the dad.

Sometimes I think that these courts have no common sense. What should the dad have done, introduce evidence to the court that men normally urinate standing up? That a boy has had a severely skewed upbringing if he never learned to urinate standing up?

A dad is important in a child's life. That should be obvious, without descending into a discussion of toilet functions.