WHY DIVORCE IS SO PREVALENT: The #1 Answer To Society's #1 Problem

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."

In reply to post 199:

The multiple wage earner thing turned out to be a real rip-off. Prior to the '70's the two paycheck family was, by and large, optional. If you made $150.00 per week in 1970, you were doing reasonably well. A nice new car could be had for $3000.00, much cheaper models were available, and used cars were cheaper yet. Two bucks bought enough gas to get the needle to the half-tank mark, and the cities had not yet been deserted by folks with means.

Two paychecks brought inflation--double digits in the late '70's (the Carter years) and interest rates which caused states to rewrite their usury laws so the banks could borrow from the Fed. Cigarettes went from a quarter a pack to a buck, cars doubled in price, (which they have done twice more since), and housing costs soared. The net gain? diddley squat, Except:

Now parents were too tired to pay attention to each other and their children. Their children were becoming 'latchkey kids', with little direct supervision, and what direct supervision they had was in the hands of a growing liberal educational establishment. The breakdown of educational discipline (order in the schools) which accompanied racial desegregation in many areas only contributed to the growing pains of a youth who were not only told they were a disaffected segment of American population at every turn (the 'generation gap'), but were, by and large treated that way. Parents who could no longer 'relate' to their children found they had little in common, mainly from a lack of communication. TV placed another stumbling block in the way of simple conversation.

A few escaped the oncoming victimhood extravaganza by a combination of guts, grit, savoir faire, or the benefits of a stay-at-home parent or extended family. The rest were left to wallow in the still-fashionable morass of victimhood.

The groups who pushed for this had, I believe in retrospect (Mom said so at the time.), an agenda. That of dissolving the family unit as an effective basic unit of government, to further a socialist control over the children. "It takes a villiage" is just the latest battle cry from those ranks..

Parents working two jobs had little or no time to involve themselves in the arduous tasks of keeping up with the pap their children were being fed in school, nor time to involve themselves with politics. They quit reading the newspapers, preferring instead the effortless alternative of having their news told to them, then interpreted for them. Their political knowledge went down the tubes, they quit paying attention, and the BS level of school curriculae increased rapidly.

Instead of being brought up to pass a legacy of a better life to their children, they either conciously or subconciously decided that either their children deserved no better than they had (childish petulence), or tried to pass on the 'better life' through the only means which would permit them to justify their own economic precedences: the gift of material things as a substitute for the love and nurturing they were too immature, unprepared, or uncaring to provide..

I can only thank God that my folks made the economic sacrifice and gave the greater gift. Mom stayed at home and raised us, and though not gainfully employed, gained an impressive reputation in local politics, running for and being elected to the local school board, and as a noted conservationist, concerned with maintaining the ecological value of the region for its great wealth of harvestable renewable natural resources. My father worked, commuting 75 to 80 miles per day, round trip, from our home out in the 'boonies' (Great place to grow up.) and working a second job on Friday nights. (In addition, my Dad was--and still is at 70--involved in the Volunteer Fire Department locally, at the County, and State level and has participated in a number of other commissions covering a broad scope of local and regional problems.) Our housing costs were lower and we were in proximity to extended family on my mother's side. While some might have considered this a spartan economic existence, (after all we did not have all the things we may have thought we wanted), we had an abundance of guidance, supervision, and love. Of material things, there was enough, though never a lavish overabundance. We never felt 'poor', and to this day I am eternally grateful to my parents for the choices they made.

My family attended church regularly, gave to the folks who lived around us who were less well off, and in general, taught me to treat all persons with basic civility and respect.

I'm not saying all the lessons were learned equally well, but the tools are in place, all I need do is use them.

Now, my wife and I are a factor in the raising of our grandchildren (we are raising two), and it is up to me to pass on the concepts of what is important. I only pray I can do as well as my parents and grandparents did.

Being intimate is difficult for those who have been raised on Oprah, have been prevented from accomplishing much, and who have been taught their beliefs by rote.

Unfortunately, children are taught more about physical intimacy, and allowed to learn less about themselves.

One of the few benefits of organized religion is a framework for comparison of your beliefs with a standard; an opportunity to confront why you believe the things you believe. Political correctness has muzzled such constructive debate in the school environment; the conclusions are forgone. Labor laws which restrict the opportunities for our youth to make meaningful contributions to their communities further retard development of the individual regardless of sex, creed, or racial/ethnic background.

When and where I grew up, we could join the local Volunteer Fire Department at 14 as a junior member, be a full-fledged member at 16, an officer at 18. You did a man's job(if you were a male--Hell if you were one of the few females who made the non-gender normed grade, you still did a man's job), and got the respect due you for it (especially if you were a woman, because everyone knew the only reason you were there was because you could hack it and wanted to).

Ladling out daily rations of self-esteem makes kids feel good, but that leaves them with little but a feeling. They don't know why. That only comes with accomplishing something.

In that vein, feeling good crowds over into marital relationships, especially when you can't possibly relate to another person who you are if you do not know. Complicate that with sex, commonly prescribed mood altering drugs, low moral expectations, and the stage is set for disaster.

My advice to young couples?

Don't have sex for the first six months, and see if you keep getting along. Go someplace where there are no distractions and talk. If that works, don't quit talking.

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.