Posted on 12/14/2001 3:21:12 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
WASHINGTON, D.C — One of the messiest areas of the law is divorce and child custody cases.
"Legal Notebook" guest, Stephen Baskerville, says that fathers are more often than not treated no better than criminals. Baskerville is a professor of political science at Howard University in Washington DC, and a spokesman for Men, Fathers and Children International.
Host Tom Jipping said to Baskerville, "In some of your writing, I´ve seen a contrast between fatherhood and fathers, particularly in terms of things that the government does. We see a lot of public relations talk about supporting fatherhood, and then, of course, you do a lot of writing as to the way fathers are treated. Distinguish fatherhood versus fathers."
Baskerville said, "It´s an important distinction. Fatherhood has become a buzzword for the government. Increasingly there is awareness of the importance of fathers -- I think it´s reaching general knowledge that fathers are important to children, that many social pathologies – most social pathologies today – result from fatherless homes, fatherless children. And the fathers are very important not only for the upbringing of their children, but for our social order as well."
Jipping said, "To me, some of the most interesting newer work in that area, not just kind of divorce generally, or broken homes sort of generally, but specifically fatherless homes -- that to me is some of the most interesting social science research that´s been done -- and not just by what you might consider conservative activists or something. There are lots of folks at your prestigious universities that are coming to the same conclusion."
Baskerville noted, "That´s right. What´s not being realized, though, is what the cause of this problem is. The assumption that is often unstated is that the fathers have abandoned or deserted their children. This is almost never the case. There´s no solid evidence whatever that large numbers of fathers in this country are simply abandoning their children. There is very solid evidence that fathers are being thrown out of the family systematically by family court, primarily."
Jipping asked, "Do fatherless homes also result from marriages not taking place – is the family simply not forming, while the mothers have the kids and the kids just stay with the mom?
Baskerville answered, "That´s true. And those cases are much more difficult to document when there´s never been a marriage in the first place. But even in those cases, most of those fathers have court orders either regulating when they can see their children, or ordering them to stay away from their children altogether."
Jipping asked, "Is there specific research on what portion of the broken homes, or the fatherless homes, result from these different causes, whether it´s [that] simply no family forms in the first place, fathers abandon their children, or the category we´re talking about here, which is intervention by family courts and fathers being ordered out of the home."
Baskerville stated, "Well, if there´s a marriage, then there is documentation -- we know who files for the divorce. And in most cases, when children are involved, it´s almost always the mother, two-thirds to three-quarters of the time. So in those cases, we have solid documentation that fathers very seldom voluntarily divorce when their children are involved. For the non-married cases, it is difficult to document. But there´s no reason to assume these fathers love their children any less. If you talk to those fathers many of them will tell you -- almost all of them will tell you -- that they desperately want to be with their children and to be active parents, and they are forcibly kept away."
Jipping mentioned an article he read in the Washington Times, on September 19, of an author, Judith Wallerstein, PhD who has been studying the effects of divorce, and has a new book out, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, a 25 year study, documenting what divorce does to family and children.
Baskerville said, "I think we´ve been denying this for many years now, that divorce is, in fact, harmful for children. I don´t think there´s any question. In many ways, divorce is kind of a conspiracy of grown-ups against children. And this is especially the case when it´s only one of the parents who want the divorce."
Jipping asked Baskerville if he agrees with the author of the book that at the time of the divorce itself, it´s really about problems and the effects that that has on the mothers and the fathers. But, the effects on the children are much, much more long-term and occur decades later.
Baskerville agreed, "Absolutely. For a child, the most terrifying thing is to lose a parent; the fear of losing a parent is horrible for a child. And also by the institution of forced divorce, we´re sending a lot of very harmful and destructive messages to children. We´re showing children that the family and the state are in effect dictatorships, in which children can be ripped apart from their parents for no reason, or for any reason, and they don´t have to have done anything wrong, or their parents don´t have to [have done anything wrong]."
Jipping asked, "We hear the phrase ‘no-fault divorce´ is that what you mean by forced divorce – is that what that becomes?"
Baskerville replied, "Absolutely. This was this deception that was brought [with] no-fault divorce. The idea was that this would be for mutual agreement -- you could have a divorce without a contest. What, in fact, it has become is [what is known as] unilateral divorce. And 80% of the divorces in this country are unilateral. They are over the objections of one parent. And that becomes even more when children are involved."
Jipping questioned, "So, does no-fault divorce really mean, under the state laws that govern the stuff, a divorce by only one of the two spouses for whatever reason that spouse chooses, not specified reasons?"
Baskerville said, "Overwhelmingly that´s true. And what´s even more shocking is that the parent that divorces is almost always the parent who expects to get custody of the children. A study by the University of Iowa found that the expectation of getting the children was the single most important factor in deciding who files for divorce."
I generally agree. In general, the time frame marks the beginning of an era in which instantaneous gratification was expected, or became so, however unrealistic that expectation remains.
Perhaps the spectre of nuclear destruction posed by the posturings of the Cold War, or the imminent possibility of being drafted played some small part.
However, at the same time, there was an ardent assault on the former norms which provided a semblance of stability to our society. While there may have been some good effects (nominally, in the area of civil rights), on balance, the destruction of many of those norms was reflected in legislation crafted by politicians eager to capture the votes of the 'young and disaffected'. A group which was significantly amplified in scope by the media of the day.
With the legal means to seek abortion, people became less careful, with the pill, less chaste. With divorce easier to obtain, and the former social stigma removed, as much by the offspring and descendants of television shows like 'Peyton Place', the cultural norm shifted, and the result has been disastrous.
Add these factors together:
An anticipation that a good marriage will develop easily, begun on little more than superficial attributes--or that the marriage will be easily terminated.
Decay of the supportive structures' prominence in our culture: the extended family, church, and community.
Removal of legal impediments and the social stigma associated with divorce.(Not to mention the Social Services' willingness to present women as abused victims and counsel for divorce rather than continued marriage, even when there has been no abuse or other improper behavior.)
A general trend away from situations in which people in a neighborhood or small town were aware of each other and each other's behaviour: anonymity.
The increased role of the State and its minions in marital discontent: Lawyers who seek to eat at the trough of a divorce, and may actually foment discontent where none existed; Counselors who work for state agencies which base their budgets on the number of 'victims' which can be manufactured for their case files.
That fewer and fewer children are growing up in stable homes and going on to found stable homes of their own, simply because they have no experience or realistic expectations on which to base their own enduring marriage.
Certainly, abuse, addiction, and adultery may play some role. Money may readily become a bone of contention. The first three are the product of looser mores and lower expectations, despite all the psychobabble about self-esteem. The latter can be worked through, but the tools of decency, honesty, compassion, and communication must all be present.
One other thing I have noticed. Regardless of what one person is willing to do to make a marriage work, if both partners are not willing to go the distance, one will suffer or the marriage will break up.
In my own little universe, I am also a parent. My daughters have experienced and learned the concept and apply it very well in their lives.
You didn't mention your daughters ages, but the kids love this one:
You remind me of a man. What man? The man with the power. What power? The power of hoodoo. Hoodoo? You do. Do what? Remind me of a man. What man? The man with the power...
Historically speaking...anti-father liberalized divorce has been instituted for 30+ years. Look at what has happened to society in the exact same time period: crime, teen pregnancy, drugs...
The time periods don't coincide coincidentally.
It's cause and effect.
Comments?
Curtesy of Gary Grant.
If you are looking for the origins...
World War II
Millions of men left home for years. The women who stayed at home were needed in the work place to replace the missing men. Women learned they could do something of value besides or in addition to being a housewife and mother. Women learned they could survive without men.
The men returned home. The economy was good. Life was good. Life was better if the families made more money. Working women made more money for families.
Working women who had learned they could survive without men grew less tolerant of men who did not behave realtive to their expectations.
And this is about where your theory comes into play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.