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."
Worth repeating.
Seems that your "Rudder" has leveled you out.
Guess you fit into the "negative" thoughts category. :-)
I don't know if divorce should be harder to get or not, I don't see how living in home with a lot of tension or bitterness is good for children, and it can't be good for them to see one lazy parent abuse the other. I think parents should all just grow up and realize that when they divorce, the kids should not divorce a parent. Just work it out somehow so both parents can spend time with the kids, forget using the kids to get revenge and put their needs first. Don't move kids to another city, don't try to make them choose between two parents they love.
Had you married me, honey, your money would be making money...not sitting in the bank. :-)
Next time marry a thrifty woman. It's YOUR choice that you go for the good looking body with no brains.
Maybe it's because they "FELL" in love? and never really took time to LOVE the person????? Just a thought.
Good. I've no doubt he did a very good job.
Ditto.
True. Problem could be that most people don't know how to be "intimate" (except physically) don't know HOW to get to know each other or work as a team. We tend to be a product of our parents relationship, for that's all we ever saw... and perhaps we don't know what comprises a lasting relationship.
Certainly schools would be better off teaching some marital skills, instead of all the PC BS taught today.
If you check out the scene in the garden of Eden, you will notice that Adam was present while the serpent was in the process of deceiving Eve. GOD had given ADAM responsibility for the garden (not Eve). After Eve ate the apple, what happened?? Nothing! But, when Adam disobeyed GOD and ate of the apple too, then and only then were he and Eve affected. But, remember, Adam stood there and watched Eve eat the apple. He could have stopped her. He could have taken her directly to GOD at that point and I believe GOD would have forgiven them. Instead, Adam participated in the disobedience.
And ... after Adam had disobeyed GOD, he and Eve went into hiding. When GOD showed up in the garden to walk and talk with ADAM (not Eve), what was it GOD said to ADAM? I'll tell you - God said, "ADAM, what have Y O U done"?? Hmmmm? How come GOD didn't say, Eve what have you done?? Because GOD holds the husband responsible for the actions of his wife!!
And ... just to rub salt in the wound, ADAM tried to make GOD responsible by saying, "it was the woman YOU gave me".
When husbands take their place in the relationship, the wife always responds in the most positive way. And, husbands, whether you like it or not, GOD does hold you responsible for the relationship.
True...adultery isn't the only reason for divorce, but it's a shame that in most states, it no longer disadvantages the wife or husband who committed it. It should.
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.