A Knight Defending Fatherhood

Fathering Magazine ^ | May 26, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

A Knight Defending Fatherhood

May 26, 2002
By Roger F. Gay

You can tell this is an election year because politicians, bureaucrats, and TV "talking heads" are bashing fathers. In the mid 1970s Congress decided to get the federal government involved in domestic relations law. Ever since, the war against dads has driven gender politics, expansion of the welfare system, and increased spending. By the early 1990s it seemed commonly accepted that battering women and abandoning wives and children to welfare was a character flaw genetically fixed by every Y-chromosome.

Enter Stephen Baskerville -- a knight defending fatherhood. Baskerville might not be what many people imagine as "one of those fathers' rights guys." A political scientist at Howard University, Dr. Baskerville's files are filled with scholarly articles with lots of citations to other scholarly articles, a growing number of which he has written. In his appearances on television and radio however, as well as in the articles he has written for the general public, one might occasionally sense a certain irritation with mis-educated public remarks about fathers.

In an article in this month's Liberty Magazine entitled "The Myth of Deadbeat Dads," Baskerville offers to educate the rich and famous. He reports that TV host Bill O'Reilly recently declared that "There is an epidemic of child abandonment in America, mainly by fathers." "Sen. Evan Bayh has attacked 'irresponsible' fathers in several speeches. Campaigning for president, Al Gore promised harsher measures against 'deadbeat dads,' including sending more to jail. The Clinton administration implemented numerous child-support 'crackdowns,' including the ominously named Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act." In response, Republicans "want to send the strongest possible message that parents cannot walk away from their children."

"Special interest groups demonized fathers," says Baskerville. "They called them 'deadbeat dads' and criminalized them. The result is a system that traces newly hired employees, shifts the burden of proof to the accused, and throws fathers in jail for losing their jobs." He is not alone in that opinion. His article sports 46 citations from a mixture of sources, including books and academic journals, the popular press, and even relevant Web sites.

"The system of collecting child support is no longer one of requiring men to take responsibility for their offspring, as most people believe. The combination of 'no fault' divorce and the new enforcement law has created a system that pays mothers to divorce their husbands and remove children from fathers."

Baskerville presents a convincing argument, well supported by research and other commentary. Quoting an article entitled "The Strange Politics of Child Support"; "By allowing a faithless wife to keep her children and a sizable portion of her former spouse's income, current child-support laws have combined with no fault jurisprudence to convert wedlock into a snare for many guiltless men." (Bryce Christensen, Society, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Nov.-Dec. 2001, p. 65)).

Baskerville adds, "This 'snare' can easily amount to a prison sentence without trial."

His work and commentary have captured the attention of the fathers rights movement. Dave Usher has been a leading activist since 1987 and served for nine years on the exectutive boards of the two largest fathers rights groups in America. He knows that political opinion has been influenced by false information and how difficult it has been to report serious problems with policies that effect fathers. Too few "researchers" who have witten about fathers and fatherhood actually did any research. "We need a few dozen more Baskervilles," he says. "He is a solid researcher."

Although there are many wrongs yet to be righted, the fathers rights movement does not face the extreme prejudice that it once did. Hundreds of organizations and conferences, loads of scholarship, and countless Web sites have sprung up over the past few years focused on issues of concern to fathers. Dr. Baskerville organized one of the first fatherhood conferences three years ago at Howard University. Conferences on fathers issues and fatherhood have been organized and supported by the Ford Foundation, the U.S. Department of Labor, the state of California, and other well established institutions.

Ironically, the Democratic Party -- the party that started the war against fathers in the mid 1970s is out to capture the male vote. Before they finalize their strategy someone should conduct a poll to see how many males age 25-50 want to be their own worst political enemies. With fatherhood knights like Stephen Baskerville around, father-bashing will not be as easy to get away with as it used to be.

---------------------------------------------

Roger F. Gay is the leader and lead researcher of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology, an R&D project focusing on the science, engineering, and application of child support guidelines.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I actually knew a couple of guys in California who turned gay, not because they were attracted to men, but because they were completely terrified of women. One guy put it this way, "I'd rather get AIDS and die my own death than be looted and pillaged by some woman, only to have her turn my own kids against me!" In fact, they came up with their own term for women - "Male Harvesting Combines".

Of course, now we are at war, so all of us men are supposed to go out and fight and die and do all of that messy stuff. Hey, I've got an idea! Why not let G.I. Jane go out and fight this one? Us stupid males are too lazy and worthless to be any good on the battlefield anyway, just look at how we are portrayed on TV and in the media!

Besides, if Islam wins and this country is turned into an Islamic theocracy just imagine what will happen to the feminists.

It really makes one think about what we are supposed to be fighting for.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Most men are actually more family oriented than women.Women tend to run from responsibility more often and much faster than men.Everyone likes to claim the"fathers"ran off,NOT SO,the mothers alienate fathers from their children and the COURTS RUN THEM OFF!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Not to suggest that fathers aren't treated unfairly by the government, but the Democrats are on record that they are targeting "Office Park Dads"-- or "Soccer Dads" this year. They are interested in a "strong military," low interest rates (a long-term optimism about the health of the economy), affordable college tuitions and adequate training for people "willing to work."

On a related note, this is why John Sununu is so formidable against Jeanne Shaheen in NH this year-- he comes off as one of these voters (so he gets some of the soccer mom vote (who like soccer dads since they married them) and the soccer dad vote-- along with loyal Republicans-- as his winning coalition). Bill Simon should focus his efforts to portray himself similarly.

[pgkdan]

WOW! You really have some issues to deal with.

[janetgreen]

Another sad turn of events here in California and probably other states, is that a man who is named as the father of a child is forced to pay the state for welfare reimbursement, EVEN IF IT IS PROVEN THAT HE WASN'T THE FATHER.

I'll never forget the smirk on the former Los Angeles district attorney's face (Garcetti) when this was made public. He pretty much was saying "too bad". He didn't care as long as the city confiscated the money.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Calvert Cliffs Cafe]

"The system of collecting child support is no longer one of requiring men to take responsibility for their offspring, as most people believe. The combination of 'no fault' divorce and the new enforcement law has created a system that pays mothers to divorce their husbands and remove children from fathers."

This engineering is working well in New Zealand too to break down family units. Men are becoming the new underclass. In many cases their assets are stripped and they are broken by very tight access arrangements to their children. The Family Court is closed, so not everyone is aware of the scale of this process.

[Don Myers]

"Why not let G.I. Jane go out and fight this one? Us stupid males are too lazy and worthless to be any good on the battlefield anyway, just look at how we are portrayed on TV and in the media!"

Works for me. Culling the herd is sometimes good.

[RogerFGay]

They've created so many politically disinfranchised fathers (don't forget their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, current wives, and friends) that they're becoming increasingly stupid to ignore them. The only thing the two parties have going for them with this group is that their both ignoring them. I believe it's the Republicans who will find the loss of male voters increasingly difficult.

[RogerFGay]

California isn't the only state that's been ordering men who aren't fathers to pay child support. The California press has just been the best about reporting problems with the child support system. The only gripe I've ever had about their reporting is the way they consistently make it sound like a local problem. There's a good side to that reporting too however. You actually know the names of some of the people directly involved. But the Governor of the state is also directly involved, judges, prosecutors, the Attorney General, etc. -- and not just in California.

[RogerFGay]

Instead of "nationwide," I should have said "international" in my last post. What happened in the US, happened at about the same time in New Zealand, Australia, throughout Great Britain, and changes were made in other European countries as well -- more recently even Sweden. (The government of Sweden is now reviewing the problem and might do something to fix it.)

Federal reform of the child support system has been the most significant part of welfare reform in the US over the past 15 years. The purpose of the reforms was to 1.) federalize the child support system, 2.) extend the welfare system's formulae and enforcement methods to non-welfare cases, and 3.) adapt to defined and as yet undefined international standards. The acceptance of reforms has been aided considerably by support from groups representing segments of the population which have profited directly from the initial increases in child support awards, primarily divorced, middle class mothers.
.....
What should be regarded as the greatest mistake in the reform movement, as well as the greatest embarrassment to the United States is that the domestic political discussion has consisted almost exclusively of propaganda demonizing non-custodial parents. In the background, the American public has been aware of "The New World Order" in relation to the fall of the Soviet Union, and generally understand that new global trade agreements have been and are being forged. But not a hint of information has been fed to the general public on integration of or "cooperation" in an array of social programs or the impact of global integration on our domestic judicial system. Had the government made a greater effort at full disclosure, the American public would surely have responded with pressure to adapt newly proposed systems to Constitutional requirements.

Source: The Child Support Guideline Problem

[Lorianne]

In response, Republicans "want to send the strongest possible message that parents cannot walk away from their children."

And this is a bad thing because ............... ?

[Lorianne]

"The system of collecting child support is no longer one of requiring men to take responsibility for their offspring, as most people believe. The combination of 'no fault' divorce and the new enforcement law has created a system that pays mothers to divorce their husbands and remove children from fathers." Divorce is a red herring to the issue of child support and child care. Children should be supported and raised by both parents whether or not the parents are married, divorced, or were never married.

[Harrison Bergeron]

Read the link. The president specifically faults fathers and pities the poor welfare mothers in his bill signing address.

Here's the salient point of the article:

"The system of collecting child support is no longer one of requiring men to take responsibility for their offspring, as most people believe. The combination of 'no fault' divorce and the new enforcement law has created a system that pays mothers to divorce their husbands and remove children from fathers."

[Lorianne]

Separate issues. No matter what happens, the children deserve support and care. Using children as pawns is despicable no matter who does it. What your quote is about is that award of custody constitutes grounds for denying support of kids. It does not.

Custody and divorce are separate issues (and I agree there are problems and needed modifications). In the meantime however, the obligations of both parents to their children continues unabated and uninterrupted by legal matters the parents get themselves into.

Note that the many "father's rights" groups are not interested in the legal presumption of Joint Physical Custody as much as they are about loosening social/legal requirements on men to support and otherwise be involved in their child's right. Many of them support "paper abortions" of offspring. The main thrust of these groups is steering men away from responsibilty and obligations towards their kids, NOT in rectifying inequities in our custody laws and lowering the incidence of divorce.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Divorce is a red herring to the issue of child support and child care. Children should be supported and raised by both parents whether or not the parents are married, divorced, or were never married.

Red herring, as in a diversion from the true issue... no I don't think so. These are divorced non-custodial parents fighting this fight. It's their right to frame the fight in terms of their needs. Without easy access to no fault divorce and slam dunk custody of the kids, families wouldn't be broken up by one spouse's whimsical desire to "spread their wings" or play the field.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Note that the many "father's rights" groups are not interested in the legal presumption of Joint Physical Custody as much as they are about loosening social/legal requirements on men to support and otherwise be involved in their child's right.

You mean "legal requirements" like these?

"The result is a system that traces newly hired employees, shifts the burden of proof to the accused, and throws fathers in jail for losing their jobs."

And you blame anybody who dares try to remedy this? Of course your choice of words, "many of the 'father's rights' groups" is a red herring in itself, ignoring that there are groups airing their grievances strictly w/r/t custody and visitation issues. You don't kill the Hydra by only lopping off one head.

[Lorianne]

Don't take my word for it then, look at the agenda of many of the so called "father's rights" and men's rights organizations. The focus is not as much rectifying problems in custody law as it is in evading responsibility altogether. In addition there is a strong bias towards coercing abortion or abandonment in OOW parenting situations. The focus again is on evading responsibility altogether rather than more reasonable sharing of responsibiity.

[Lorianne]

These are divorced non-custodial parents fighting this fight. It's their right to frame the fight in terms of their needs.

Right. Obviously missing any reference to the obligations parents have for their offspring. You make my point for me. Without easy access to no fault divorce and slam dunk custody of the kids, families wouldn't be broken up by one spouse's whimsical desire to "spread their wings" or play the field.

Again, whether families are "broken up" or not is a separate issue from whether or not kids deserve support and care before or after. Children are owed these things regardless the marital situation. Divorce should not be cited as a "excuse" for parents not fulfilling their oblations towards their offspring. What you and Mr. Gay are attempted to do is create a diversion by doing is shifting the issue from the responsibilites of parents towards kids, to a secondary issue, one I might add does not even come into play in many many CS situations because the parents were never married to begin with.

In addition your charachterization of divorce is "whimsical speculation" in and of itself. However that is another topic entirely.

The point of conflating all these issue is so one can create an the illusion that parents' obligations towards their kids are somehow obviated by mitigating circumstances (even completely speculative ones). Interestig ploy but it doesn't fly for those awake and paying attention.

Parents are obligated to support and care for their offspring. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Otherwise you're setting up a framework by which parents can say "I don't think I'm being treated fairly by the co-parent so I'm going to take out my frustration on the kids. Using kids as pawns is a disgusting and cowardly way to deal with adult problems and frustrations, no matter how legitimate they might be.