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 like that. That articulates it very nicely.
"An end to no-fault divorce AND the divestiture of the current gyncentricized and virtually immutable child-custody advantage would be the single most powerful tools for dramatically decreasing the divorce rate here in the United States of America."
To: ALL
With regards to custody, too often the family court takes the gender-feminist position, which is that women are the owners of the children, children are chattel subject to maternal possession, and fathers are ATMs and "visitors"
This perspective is antithetical to both the reality of situations of any given family, and a virtual deification of motherhood in concordance with the feminist peripheralizing of fatherhood.
And in the last 30+ years of the movement to peripheralize fatherhood, just look what has happened to society: drugs, crime, immorality, "alternative lifestyles", abortion....
The co-incidence is not coincidental.
It is cause and effect.
I'd like to note also that within the father's rights movement, those who are in it primarily for financial reasons form a distinct minority.
The vast majority want equal time with the children they love, and need protection therefor enshrined in law. The vast majority would trade every dime they have for equal time with their children.
And here is a critical point.
Too often, the rhetoric of "best interests of the child" is proferred with zero substance thereto attached.
The best interests of the child in reality, as opposed to in women-first fathers-last feminist philosophy, is for their time spent with each parent after the divorce to as nearly as possible reflect the time spent with each parent within the marriage.
Any objections to this are based upon a women-first perspective, not a child-first perspective.
One of these days someone is going to wise up and kick me off FR as a thread killer - 3rd or 4th in past 24 hours or so!!!
LOL!
When you take the square root, you have a positive and a negative root. So girls are more or less evil!
Wealth, or lack thereof, has less to do with a committed marriiage / divorce than the poster , to whom I replied , and evidently you, would surmise. Simplistic answers , to a complex problem , serves little purpose.
I don't want to continue the flame war that erupted on this thread after you posted..sorry... however I do wish to state that, as a gentleman, the proper response to being called a Marxist cannot be performed over the internet.
I don't have to turn my back on the Colors of the USA when they pass by. As far as reverse snobbery goes, YES! I am a reverse snob. Have been since birth, and pretty much always will be. Being born and raised in a Steel Town will do that to you, along with the *consideration* I recieved when I returned home from the military, and then, during the '70's trying to get a career started, forget the degrees one obtained, all anyone noticed was the fact I was a Vietnam Vet, and there were some pretty nasty comments from the runners and evaders who were pardoned or who just never got caught, and who had spent the time advancing in careers while I was serving. I will not forget what happened then, because, as the saying goes, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
I do not consider myself in the category of people who you mentioned in your post. I don't go around bashing anyone, except for the group which I have mentioned above.
Keep the Faith for Freedom
MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC
Greg
I was living in Manhattan, at that time. I PROUDLY wore an American flag pin, and though a woman, I spat at those spitting on vets, yelled at them , and yes, gave them something to mull over later . I shocked them silly, by employing their own words ( slightly changed ) to insult and humiliate them. They thought that NO Conservative would EVER feel about them, as they felt about US; big mistake in their part ! It was funny, to see the reaction on their faces, to being told that THEY should be the ones " up against the wall ... " ! hehehehehe
Your reverse snobbery is just as bad ( if not worse , since you are a Conservative ) as their elitist snobery is. Please think about this, and try to see of what I am saying is true. Not ALL wealthy people are idiots / Liberals; just as not ALL poor / middle class people are noble , wise, and Conservative. Class warfare IS Marxist !
Reverse snobbery is an "in" joke in our family. My parents, who are alive and well in their 80's still kid around about it, but we really don't mean this seriously. You should hear my father rail about union negotiations (He, like I, cast our lot with management from day one heheh). I really don't carry an open chip on my shoulder about success/wealth/etc, it's just we have managed to perfect the "middle class" image in our family (Heck, I even own some bowling shirts, used to bowl with a league) over the years regardless of what our situation was. I've managed to do pretty well for my family and myself over the years, and am one confirmed capitalist (VBG).... I enjoyed your comments to no end about "standing em up against the wall". I have uttered the same statement many, many times...sometimes with more than a little seriousness in my comments..its a good thing that it wasn't in the PC climate we have today..... would have wound up on a lot of "persona non grata" lists.....
Greg
Good ; I am delighted that you and your's are doing well ! Like all Conservatives, I want EVERYONE to work hard AND do very well ! : - )
I am one of the evil women some of you have been talking about here. Several years ago I walked away from a 15 year marriage and took my children with me. I had some damned good reasons for doing it.
The first 5 years of our marriage were wonderful. We lived in the same town where we met and hung out with the same friends. Then he changed jobs and we moved to another state. I made an effort to make friends in our new home. He did not. He told me I was the only friend he needed.
Then our first baby was born. A girl. He couldn't understand why babies had to cry so much or why I was frequently too tired for sex.
The year our son was born he decided he wasn't going to celebrate holidays anymore because they were "tribal rituals" and ordered me to call both of our families and tell them we're not having Christmas at our house and to not bother sending us any presents, not even for our 5 year old daughter. I told him if he felt that way he was free to spend the holidays elsewhere, but the kids and I were having Christmas. He backed down, but the attitude lingered.
I tried homeschooling our daughter. Almost daily my husband complained that somebody with my education and skills ought to be out contributing to the family income, not staying home "playing" with children.
So, I went out and got a job. Now the complaint was that I wasn't home enough and the house wasn't clean. When I suggested hiring a maid service he refused to even consider the idea even if the money for it came directly out of my paycheck on the grounds it would be a "reward" for my laziness. I was not supposed to see friends in the evenings or on weekends as that was family time and any socialization I needed I could get at work. I also could not attend Open House and other school events with the children because "schools ought not ask that of parents".
He had a gun. A pistol from the 1940's, a family heirloom that had belonged to his grandfather. Sometimes, when he was in an especially dark mood, he would take the gun from its hiding place inside the coat closet, load it, then wave it around exclaiming it was our only protection against all the evil in world. He never threatened either me or the kids with it, but I was terrified of what he might do.
The final nail was pounded into the coffin of our marriage when I discovered he was taking the children on outings with women he met in sex chat rooms on the Internet. He told the kids the ladies were friends from the office.
I filed for divorce the next day. It took three months and a court order to get him out of the house. He moved to a community an hour away. He asked for joint custody of the kids, but I would not even consider it. I thought he would fight me on it, but he didn't.
On January 1, 2001 he married one of his Internet babes. By August he had quit his job and was taking anti-depressants. On November 28, 2001, just days after spending the Thanksgiving holidays with our children, he took that family heirloom I mentioned earlier and blew his brains out in front of his new wife and stepson. When I heard the news I got down on my knees and thanked God he wasn't in my house or around my children when he did it.
1. "Unrealized Expectations." We tend to have expectations of our mates that are so unrealistic (figment of our own imagination) so we set ourselves up for failure from the beginning.
2. We all have positives and negatives about us. If we CHOOSE to emphasize the negatives about our mate, then we set ourselves up for failure. If we concentrate on the positives, we will tend to see ourselves and our mates in a much brighter light. It is OUR personal choice which one we emphasize.
No one wants guys like that to get custody.
No one wants women like Andrea Yates to get custody.
Rather, only, that where both parents are good people, there be parity without bias.
Sorry to hear about your situation, hope your family prospers over time.
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.