But in court does a father get custody of the children if he is abusive?
Its a stupid argument. The whole point of sede vacante is that the claimant doesn't meet one of the prerequisites to claim the papacy. A proper analogy would be "just because your father didn't have sexual relations with your mother doesn't mean he's not your father." That's exactly the point of contention, whether or not the prequisites for the role are satisfied. The bad father analogy doesn't take that into account. It assumes what its trying to prove.
Well maybe the father analogy doesn't work for sedepleinists either.
He is like a father who has been absent whom the mother bars from seeing the children. Sedeprivationism then? SSPX are right? I don't think so.
It should take more than a non-Catholic claimant to the papacy and heretical cardinals to paralyse the church. Do not forget, the church is paralysed in a death spiral precisely because groups like the SSPX still think he is their legitimate superior whom they must obey. It is not an abstract theological argument that decides this. His papacy is clearly an offence to divine law.
He fell out of the church and has no right to lead her, especially not when he has made it clear that he wants to kill her. The papacy is not like an earthly marriage, it is more like a business contract. He got fired by his boss ( GOD), but refuses to leave the premises.
The point is that it is an awful analogy because it assumes what it seeks to prove, and in addition to that it is a role which once held, cannot be lost (unlike an office in the Church).
The SSPX say he's their superior but they don't (thankfully) obey him. This much is obvious.