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."
Sounds like you have it all worked out...I notice women do that alot...Perfectly good reasons to ignore what he wants, but still expecting to have her needs served. Did I mention the ubiquitous condesention?
Mothers are excellent nurturers and fathers are great at preparing the child for independance. This is not to say that either is more important, that is what the judges and lawyers have been doing to American families for 30 years now. Currently the father has the right to shut up pay money (far more than he should have to pay) and see his child once a year.
Our system is so corrupt that since my divorce, if my ex-wife gets a big raise, my child-support would go up. How can that be considered fair by anyones imagination?
The ultimate is a good, healthy, moral man and woman marriage where the children learn by example (seeing a good moral relationship work the way it was designed by God).
Honestly, I resent the implication here. I wasn't attempting to make a blanket declaration. I was responding to a post that decried the fact the it's mostly the women who initiate divorces that never bothered to take into consideration the fact that there just MAY be some underlying reasons for this. I NEVER implied that (or if I DID, I apologize) one or the other was completely at fault nor that there wasn't room for improvement on both sides.
What would you accept as undeniable proof of the first possibility. When you can realisticly answer that question...I promise I can meet that standard.
No you were trying to establish plausible deniability for a hypothetical best case scenario for the woman. I resent your stating the obvious, because if those were the particulars that men complained about....I wouldn't listen to them either.
I don't doubt that there are many women who are unappreciative of the efforts of their husbands. But I have to think that men, being the assertive individuals they usually are, can find some way to deal with the situation.
Who decides if a couple may marry?
Who issues the couple a marriage license?
Who defines the rules of legal marriage?
Who decides the grounds for divorce?
Marriage would be silly, for example, if one man and one woman were the only humans on earth: They could decide to be married one day and divorced the next, only to remarry the day after that.
They could decide to be "married" when they feel like having sex, and decide to be "divorced" when one or the other has a headache.
With nowhere to go--with no other potential mate to impregnate your wife or steal your man away leaving you to raise the kids alone--marriage is meaningless.
Marriage is the invention of society. Society creates and enforces marriage.
Society also creates and enforces divorce--for divorce, like marriage, is meaningless apart from a couples membership in a larger group.
It seems to me, that outside of infidelity, physical abuse or addiction, most marital problems are caused by differences of opinion about 1)money issues, 2)time spent with each other and/or 3)how household and family responsibilities are to be shared. The most important thing to me, it would seem is to make sure that both spouses come to agreement about those core issues. How that is accomplished is a very much a function of the individual personalities involved.
I must be one of those rare people who know many couples who have been happily married for ten to fifteen years. Not a single one them would tell you that they haven't encountered serious difficulties with their spouses at one time or another.
These arrangements, based upon the factors above, tend to be realistic for the couple at hand. Whether their children are sons or daughters, babies or teenagers, the division-of-labor with regards to the caregiving of the children should be as nearly the same in divorce as it was in the marriage.
This is the only way to prize the stability interests of the children over the interests of either parent.
There are fathers who raise babies perfectly, attuned to every cue...a Y chromosome affects style, but doesn't diminish quality or importance. Trust me on this one.
A father should have no less time with his children in divorce than he did within the marriage. Ditto for mothers.
As to money, that is a secondary issue which should in no way subordinate the prescription regarding custody arrangements noted above.
Yet, it is an issue, so I'd say simply proportional division, based upon the real needs of the child. If Parent A earns $80,000 a year and Parent B earns $20,000 a year, the payment of "child support" should be divided 80% to 20% and put into a checking account that doesn't allow cash or debit/credit card withdrawals. Both Parent A and Parent B should have full access to the account records, and photocopies of checks written on the account should be mailed to both parents each month automatically, with the subject lines of each check noting the nature of the expense that the check is written for.
Well said. Please see #356, this thread!
Well said. Please see #356, this thread!
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.