Divorce, Child Custody, and "Traditionalism" (A Worthless Word)

TooGood Reports ^ | 3/14/02 | Isaiah Flair

[Good Tidings Of Great Joy]

Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York City, was denied the time he sought to spend with his own children.

This is how American divorce courts treat fathers, purely out of anti-fatherhood sexism. Even a father who did so much for the city of New York, and by extension for the spirit of all America, cannot get fair treatment from the divorce courts.

I don't agree with Rudy Giuliani on a number of things, and his affair with Judith Nathan is one of them.

However, he is by every credible account a good father, and that must be the pre-eminent consideration in his child custody proceedings.

He should not, just as millions of other faultless fathers should not, have been reduced to being merely a visitor in the lives of his own children.

The whole concept of child-custody proceedings as a winner-take-all situation, heavily weighted against even the best fathers, is ridiculous.

So are the words of the judge in Rudy Giuliani's case, as she rejected his bid to spend more time with his own children:

"A more traditional visitation schedule reflects the historical division of responsibility for the children in this family," she said.

What on Earth does "traditional" mean, so used? That fathers being reduced to every-other-weekend visitors in the lives of their own children is now something "traditional"?

So used, the word "traditional" is now a word that means nothing. Is the single-mom welfare scenario now "traditional" because it has been prevalent for a few decades?

Is anything that has become the status quo for thirty years or more "traditional" no matter how socioculturally deleterious it may be?

By every measure, children from homes where the father is not majorly involved are more likely to get into drug use, crime, violence, and all manner of things not good for them.

Are these things "traditional"? Has the feminist counterculture become the Establishment Culture in these United States?

Actually, the answer is yes, it has.

And according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "traditional" is defined as "an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)".

Under that definition, fatherless homes, and mistreatment of fathers in child custody cases, qualifies, technically, as "traditional". Which is one reason I don't believe in traditionalism as a concept.

I do, however, believe in Fatherhood. And our society complains so much about those fathers who abandon their children, while totally disrespecting the millions of fathers who want to spend all the time they can with their children.

The latter breeds the former, folks.

Enough is enough, and it's time for a change.

There must be in every state in the nation a legislatively instituted presumption of joint residential child custody, to be shared by both parents, in the event of a divorce.

There are a small percentage of parents who are unsuited to child custody due to their criminal histories. Thus the rebuttability of the presumption. However, most parents are decent people. The fathers are, and the mothers are. To suggest that either of them is less capable or less valuable as a parent, for sons and daughters alike, is pure, undiluted sexism.

Children, whether infants or teenagers or any age in between, need their fathers and their mothers equally.

Equally in terms of actual time spent.

Traditional, not traditional, I don't care.

The word has become less than meaningless.

Joint residential custody is the right thing to do.

And it is the best interests of the children, not to mention society at large.

In lieu of legal protection for fatherhood, every single other address of every other social problem is simply spitting in the wind.

[Robert_Paulson2]

This should be fun to watch.

[Pern]

And our society complains so much about those fathers who abandon their children, while totally disrespecting the millions of fathers who want to spend all the time they can with their children.

Ain't that the truth. I have a psycho ex-wife that will find any trivial excuse she can to keep my son from me. The courts and Social Services are no help at all.

[cherry]

another poor me father thread...

another whiny father that has to pay child support..

because that is what it is all about isn't it>

you got stuck actually paying for creating children and you just don't like it so you will disrupt your family as much as you can.

... Babies need their mothers, bub...they are born of woman for a reason...they come out of our bodies, we suckle them...neither of these things can a well-meaning dad do..

Joint custody is a huge politically correct mistake....to disrupt children their entire young lives so daddy and mommy can each get a piece of them is so barbaric and self-serving on the part of the parents..

I would love to see the children stay in the house and mommy and daddy come and go....that would make more sense..

Maybe if dads realized that their very families will be hurt when they decide to divorce, or play around , or do whatever they do to disrupt the marriage, and maybe if they realized that they will lose their children if they commit adultery or divorce, then maybe , just maybe, they would try to stay married to the little woman...this goes visa-versa for women as well..

In fact, perhaps the rule should be that whoever is the adulterer, or the drinker, or the drug abuser, or the batterer,in short the person who in reality breaks up the home, if that person was guarenteed to not get custody, wow, what a change would take place.

[in the Arena]

It's obvious from your uneducated diatribe that you don't know what you are talking about.

Read these facts over, check the sources...then post your apology for insulting fathers, mothers and parents everywhere that care about the well being of their children.

Important Information for Dads

By the time a child reaches his or her fifth birthday, their brain is nearly 90-95% fully developed. Thus, the first five years of a child's life are absolutely crucial to laying a strong developmental foundation for the rest of the child's life.

Fathers play a unique role, very different from mothers, in promoting their child's overall social, physical and intellectual development.

Research clearly demonstrates how father involvement can promote children who grow to be productive children and adults, and also indicates a broad array of negative childhood outcomes when children are raised without their father's involvement.

Potential Consequences of Absent or Uninvolved Fathers
Sources for the following information are available here.

• Fatherless daughters are 111% more likely to have children as teenagers. ¹
  
  
• Fatherless daughters are 164% more likely to give birth to an illegitimate child. ²
  
  
• Fatherless daughters are 92% more likely to fail in their own marriages. ³
  
  
• Fatherless men are 35% more likely to experience marital failure. ⁴
  
  
• Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of high school. ⁵
  
  
• Fatherless children are failing school not because they are intellectually or physically impaired, but because they are emotionally incapacitated. ⁶
  
  
• In schools across the nation, principals are reporting a dramatic rise in aggressive, acting-out behavior, especially among boys who live in single-parent homes. ⁷
  
  
• Fatherless children are from 100 to 200% more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems according to the National Center on Health Statistics. ⁸
  
  
• Fatherless young adults are twice as likely to need psychological help. ⁹
  
  
• Fatherless sons are 300% more likely to be incarcerated in state juvenile institutions. ¹⁰
  
  
• Fatherless daughters are 53% more likely to get married in their teenage years. ¹¹
  
  
• The most reliable predictor of crime is neither poverty nor race, but growing up fatherless. ¹²
  
  
• More than 70% of all juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes. ¹³
  
  
• Children from father absent homes make up 63% of youth suicides. ¹⁴

Why Focus on Fathers? How Children Benefit When Fathers Are Involved
Sources for the following information are available here.

Research shows that children's social, physical, and intellectual development benefits greatly from the involvement of fathers in their upbringing. Having a father who is both physically available and emotionally connected increases the likelihood of a child's healthy development. Children raised by involved fathers are most often active, vital, and vigorous babies, toddlers, preschoolers, and school-aged children.

Research of the last several years investigating father-infant relationships and the influence of fathers in their children's lives has shown that:

• Babies whose fathers have been actively involved with them score higher on standardized developmental assessments (especially in the area of mental and motor development). ¹
  
  
• The more fathers were involved in the everyday repetitive aspects of care, such as bathing, feeding, dressing and diapering during the first eight weeks of their infant's life, the more socially responsive the babies were. Additionally, these same babies were better able to withstand stressful situations later during their school years. ²
  
  
• Fathers make a significant contribution to the formation and clarification of sexual identity in their children. ³
  
  
• In studies of premature infants, researchers found that early paternal involvement has a significant effect on lessening the long term vulnerability of these infants. ⁴
  
  
• Infants whose fathers are involved, cope better with strangers and demonstrate a lower degree of stressfulness or anxiety. ⁵
  
  
• Premature infants whose fathers spent more time playing with them had better cognitive outcomes at age 3. ⁶
  
  
• Through the variety of maternal and paternal touch play and vocal patterns, infants learn to better deal with differing patterns of adult interaction, expectations, and styles. ⁷
  
  
• Girls raised with involved, nurturing fathers display a greater sense of competency - especially in mathematics - and a secure sense of femininity, which leads towards appropriate and healthy relationships with boys and men during their teenage and adult years. ⁸
  
  
• Boys raised with involved, nurturing fathers are at far less risk of being excessively aggressive, violent or exhibiting other anti-social behaviors. ⁹
  
  
• Both boys and girls raised with involved fathers display a greater locus of control - the ability to take initiative and direct themselves. ¹⁰
  
  
• Research has shown that fathers play a major role in helping their children develop a sense of their own competence and independence outside the powerful intimacy of the mother/child dyad. ¹¹
  
  
• Researchers have demonstrated a connection between nurturing, involved fathers and higher academic performance in both boys and girls. ¹²
  
  
• Studies reveal that even in high crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90% of children from safe, stable homes in which the father is present and involved do not become delinquents. ¹³
  
  
• Although a pattern of attitudes, beliefs, and demographic factors is consistently associated with willingness to breast-feed among mothers, the strongest and most consistent variable is the support of the father. ¹⁴
  
  
• If a man is involved in the daily physical care of his child during a significant period before the child reaches the age of 36 months, the probability that that man will be involved in the sexual abuse of his own or anyone else's children is dramatically reduced. ¹⁵

Whether the outcome variable is cognitive development, sex role development, or psycho-social development, children are better off when their relationship with their father is close and warm. ¹⁶

[right2parent]

In fact, perhaps the rule should be that whoever is the adulterer, or the drinker, or the drug abuser, or the batterer,in short the person who in reality breaks up the home, if that person was guarenteed to not get custody, wow, what a change would take place.

In fact, that is the law. If men would learn to stand up for their rights, the "best interest" nonsense would be limited to granting guardianship privileges. That is the law. No positive law has ever negated the natural right of a father to remain the caretaker of his children when the little woman takes a walk (because she isn't happy). If the law were enforced, there would be much less divorce and illigitimacy. There is obviously some cases were a man should loose such a right, if not temporarily. That's what a trial by jury determines, not the feel good whims of a judge. Notice the different standards of adjudication?

[The Giant Apricots]

another poor me father thread... another whiny father that has to pay child support.. because that is what it is all about isn't it

Hate fathers much? I ran an IE word search on this thread, including the original article and posts before you. There is no mention of child support until you bring it up.

The money is, therefor, obviously not the primary issue, except to you.

It's about a right to continue to be a parent.

Which is what you are attacking.

It is about the right to continue to be a father to one's own children.

Which is what you are attacking.

FR exists to open subjects up.

Not to shut them down.

[Nick Danger]

Yours is quite possibly the most arrogant and hateful piece of sexist tripe I have ever read in my life. You actually view half of your own species as sub-human animals who can have their young seized and taken away from them at whim, as if they were cats or cattle.

And you view yourself as part of the Master Race who can do that to these animals.

Pardon me, I'll have to leave now. You're literally making me sick.

[IronJack]

And of course your assumption is that the culprit in all this will be the father ... You know those stinking men. Just can't trust 'em ...

What is that old rhyme? Boys are made of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails? But girls are sugar and spice and everything nice? Uh huh. Pretty sorry if our justice system is built on THAT foundation.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"I would love to see the children stay in the house and mommy and daddy come and go....that would make more sense.."

While I find your attitude towards men repulsively bigoted and juvenile, you may have something there. The evidence is in. The data shows that children who are raised by single or divorced women and are denied exposure to a concerned father are up to nine times more likely to become incarcerated, five times as likely to drop out of school, four or five times more likely to have a child out of wedlock, get involved with gangs, etc. etc. etc. As opposed to increased government meddling as I am, I propose that its high time the so-called "Family courts" started treating visitation agreements with the same gravity as support payment agreements. Spouses who renege on visitation agreements should be incarcerated so as to allow the agrieved spouse time to administer his or her appointed parental duties unmolested by the hostilities of the defaulting party.

That this hasn't happened in the thirty years since the institution of "no fault" divorce says that it's never been "about the children." It's been about man hating feminist victimology run amuck.

[RGSpincich]

Babies need their mothers, bub...they are born of woman for a reason...they come out of our bodies, we suckle them...neither of these things can a well-meaning dad do..

Signed,

Andrea Yates

Gender alone means nothing. Unless those baby feeders are attached to something decent, the baby is better off with a bottle.

[Nick Danger]

What is that old rhyme? Boys are made of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails? But girls are sugar and spice and everything nice?

I am convinced that that nursery rhyme has has become one of our cultural artifacts not because it is descriptive, but because it is useful as part of the socialization process.

As our other child socialization processes like two parent families and stories about heroic or virtuous people break down, it is becoming increasingly evident that unsocialized females are extremely vicious and mean, especially to each other.

The reason adults didn't used to turn out like animals, as so many seem to do now, is that we used to teach children things like "little girls are made of sugar and spice." Absent this lesson, it turns out they're not.

This whole issue of breaking and smashing every form of child socialization we used to have -- from two-parent families, to schools that taught things like morals and ethics, to having spotless heroes like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to look up to -- is part of a truly evil Gramscian-style plot to make the whole society fall apart. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people would want to do this. Their own kids are going to have to live in the mess they make. And an ugly mess it's going to be.

[IronJack]

it is useful as part of the socialization process.

I agree with your core idea, but that nursery rhyme compliments only half of our society, and that unrealistically. Little girls are just as vicious by nature as little boys, who are not nearly the monsters tradition would have us believe they are. The "liberation" of women has allowed -- nay, encouraged -- them to seek their own levels of depravity, as though somehow THAT was the image to which they should aspire, rather than an elevated sense of propriety and domestic excellence.

In other words, little girls gave up the sugar and spice, which was fine since it was pretty unrealitic to begin with. But they gave it up in favor of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails. So now we've got an entire society comprised of reptiles, mollusks, and the caudal appendages of domesticated canines.

[WillaJohns]

Even a bad father is better than no father.

[Nick Danger]

...that nursery rhyme compliments only half of our society, and that unrealistically. Little girls are just as vicious by nature as little boys, who are not nearly the monsters tradition would have us believe they are

Again, I don't see the nursery rhyme as being descriptive. I think the "snakes and snails" part is meant to encourage boys to be curious, adventuresome explorers of the world... just the sort of characteristics in men that feminists hate.

The feminists are absolutely correct when they say that such nursery rhymes are part of a process that maintains traditional sex roles where men are 'adventuresome explorers' and women are those nice people who keep all of society's relationships greased. Feminists hate that. But the societies that practice that are the ones that have come to inherit the Earth.

Every single major civilization on Earth, no matter how weirdly different they are in other ways, has the concepts of 'marriage' and 'family' and 'two-parent households.' It's usually the men who 'tinker and explore' and the women who 'maintain home and hearth.'

Whatever else one can say about that arrangement, it basically works, where "works" means that the European, Chinese, Indian, Arab, etc. civilizations who follow that basic recipe have blown all other arrangements off the planet.

I just love it when some feminist academic trots out a tribe of bush people someplace who eat roots and live in hollowed-out trees, and offers this as an example of a successful society without traditional sex roles.

Imagine a world where men have no interest in science or the world around them, and where women bend their social skills toward being mean, vicious backstabbers. What the Hell kind of a society would that make? Who would want to live there? Could such people even maintain a civilization? Sadly, I think we're going to find out the hard way that they can't.

I think the Gramscian lunatics are past the tipping point in terms of arranging our societal institutions to produce exactly that sort of adult population.

[jurisdog]

This article stinks of ignorance and self-pity.

Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York City, was denied the time he sought to spend with his own children.

There are a LOT of factors that get considered in family law courtrooms. Without knowing many of the necessary factors in his case, its impossible to have an informed opinion of what happened. That said, Giuliana is an adulterer. Regardless of the leadership he showed post 9/11, the fact that he was an adulterer, that he was the primary cause of the dissolution of his marriage, and that he's a man are all factors that are going to weigh in favor of the mother.

This is how American divorce courts treat fathers, purely out of anti-fatherhood sexism.

Could you be any more general, or biased?

However, he is by every credible account a good father, and that must be the pre-eminent consideration in his child custody proceedings.

Actually, you're wrong. There are MANY factors that get considered, not just the quality of the parent involved. Even the "good father" standard you speak of is incredibly complicated. Take, for example, the mayor of New York. How much time per week do you honestly believe he will have to "father" his children?

He should not, just as millions of other faultless fathers should not, have been reduced to being merely a visitor in the lives of his own children.

Faultless? Are you kidding? You yourself just referred to his adultery. He made his OWN choices when he dipped his stick in the wrong oil.

The whole concept of child-custody proceedings as a winner-take-all situation...

I suggest you read up on the issue before you make yourself sound even more ignorant. In case you haven't heard, child custody is almost NEVER EVER a winner-take-all. Joint 50/50 custody is common, so is primary with major visitations.

What on Earth does "traditional" mean, so used? That fathers being reduced to every-other-weekend visitors in the lives of their own children is now something "traditional"?

Traditional means (1) mothers are more important in the full-time upbringing of minor children that fathers and that (2) men are traditionally the bread winner and more involved in their careers than are women.

[SauronOfMordor]

-- is part of a truly evil Gramscian-style plot to make the whole society fall apart. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people would want to do this. Their own kids are going to have to live in the mess they make. And an ugly mess it's going to be.

I guess certain "elite" members think that a broken-down society will be easier to rule. They don't necessarily think that their own offspring will be in the middle of it -- they might think they will be secure in guarded enclaves.

The last time Western civilization broke down was after the fall of the Roman Empire. Then we had a "nobility" who were lived in luxurious "gated communities" (castles), protected by armed guards, and where the peasantry was forbidden access to arms, and literacy was the exclusive perogative of the elite.

The problem the old nobility faced was that they weren't inherently smarter than the people they ruled, so as soon as civilization re-established itself in the 1400's, the old nobility were eventually overthrown. But they sure lived well for the thousand years before that...

[SauronOfMordor]

Take, for example, the mayor of New York. How much time per week do you honestly believe he will have to "father" his children?

Rudy Giuliani is no longer mayor of NY. His term ended in January. He has all the time in the world now to be with his kids, if his wife and the courts would let him

[FITZ]

In fact, perhaps the rule should be that whoever is the adulterer, or the drinker, or the drug abuser, or the batterer,in short the person who in reality breaks up the home, if that person was guarenteed to not get custody, wow, what a change would take place.

It depends a lot on the circumstances. Joint custody can be good if the parents can do that but for any of the 3 A's like you say, the more responsible parent should get custody. The statistics don't include post divorce lifestyle factors ---like number of mother's boyfriends or how many nights the mother is out of the house looking for dates. Or how ugly the marriage got before the divorce and how much damage was done by parents' fighting in front of the kids.

[FITZ]

Yes ---it's not just men and it's not just women. Men used to be gentlemen, women used to be ladies but society has broken down.