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."

I agree, the husband to be should take a better look. Had I done so, I would not be in my third marriage, I would have married my wife 20 years sooner.

That said, I have found that a great deal of our society curently places great value on deception. What was once makeup or a little lipstick has grown into an industry of enhancement, liposuction, rhinoplasty, orthadonture, collagen treatment. Superficial deception has become the norm, and with it, the bar has been lowered for deception on other levels as well.

Neither of my first two spouses were honest with me, nor could they be, I realize in retrospect, simply because they were incapable of being honest with themselves.

After my second divorce, I took a few years to root and dig, not only for the causes of those marriages failure in my ex wives, but in myself as well. There are few who made no mistakes, who did nothing wrong. I know where I failed, but even if I had not, a marriage takes, on occasion, the concerted effort and will of both parties. In the absence of that, the marriage will fail.

Neither were raving knockouts, in fact, both were rather plain. I failed to discern the 'early warning signs of marital incompatibility' in both cases.

For the benefit of others, those early warning signs:

1) Credibility: Do they make a habit of saying one thing and doing another? Does the story change? Are there significant inconsistencies in their descriptions of past events? How much of their past is polished to make them look better? to make others look worse?

2) What is their attitude toward their ex-spouse (in my age group, that is there in most cases)? Why? Is it justified, or is it a rationalization? (NOTE: this one is tricky, guys, a lot of guys/girls seem one way around 'the guys/girls' but are another critter around--or to a person of the opposite sex.

3) What are their priorities? List them by time/money spent. Do they have any incompatible compulsive behaviors?

4) Where are their kids? Do they put the children ahead of you when the children need it? All of the time? Never? Are the kids in trouble? For what, where? What attitude do their children have toward them? Why? Are the children trotted out for show and then sequestered or are they active participants in the developing realtionship? Are they being used to bait the hook? Do they denigrate their ex in front of the kids?

5)How do they treat the hired help, or other people of the same/opposite sex who know you? Shoddy treatment of undeserving waitresses, clerks, etc. shows a lack of civility which may run deeper than those they consider inferior. What are they saying about you behind your back? Are they blatantly two-faced in thier dealings with others? Do they leave a decent tip or protest when you do? Do they feel threatened by your few close friends--or do they get along well?

6)Are they scrupulously honest? Lying about little things indicates a tendency to bend the truth when convenient. Small dishonesties lead to greater ones. This comes with a caveat: Don't ask the question if you do not want to know the answer. Most of the past's details belong there.

7)Can they be genuinely happy for someone else's triumphs or good fortune? Even if they were competing for the same thing (like a promotion?)What will their attitude be if you do well? Vice versa?

8) Will they tell when they think you are wrong? Right? Will they admit, gracefully to an error? (Can you?)

9) Do you have common and differing interests. One provides a basis for discussion, the other provides room to learn and grow.

10)Are your political/religious/philosophical beliefs compatible? Not can you 'bring them around?', but compatible now.

Put all of this in the context of an impending relationship, and many will not get far past the first date. Aside from a few physical parameters, the essence of good sex is communication, and that can/will (perhaps) come later. As you get older, that loses some of its urgent priority anyway, other factors take precedence.

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.