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."
You do know what thread I was talking about, don't you?
People have gotten along in marriages without society. Many couples have gotten married by finding a justice of the peace "across the state line" for many years. Marriage is an institution that does several things. One thing that it does is protect women in marriages. It also protects the institution of the family.
People may be divorced for any reason these days, including just plain incompatibility. A marriage is nothing but a sham as far as laws are concerned, with the exception of the man paying thru the nose when a divorce occurs. People do not need permission of the state to marry. Many states have the "common law marriage" provision in their state laws. A marriage license is a technicality. Point out a state clerk who will say to a couple that they cannot get a license. The license is a revenue provision in the state laws and goes to pay the recording fees.
I am going to go out on a limb here and assume (yes, I know the old saying) that you are speaking from the voice of experience and this is why you are unwilling to accept the reason for my posting this train of reasoning in the first place. Sorry that you feel that a woman who attempts (in YOUR eyes) to "explain" something, is only being underhanded or conniving. Sometimes this is simply not the case. You might want to take an in-depth study into the differences in the ways the sexes communicate. You just might learn something.
Your # 347 I resent your stating the obvious, because if those were the particulars that men complained about
You're probably correct about this. After having several male friends who have gone through divorces, I can tell you pretty quickly that (even to their female friends) they bitch and whine about either how much weight their wife has gained or how little sex they're getting without EVER stopping to think about the underlying reasons for either! Also, the guys never stop to realize that they have a few problems themselves (balding, pot-belly/love handles getting larger, lack of foreplay/romance, lack of attention outside household functions, etc., etc.).
Thing is - you started this entire diatribe because you didn't pay attention to the post that I was replying to in the first place which was faulting all women because they were the ones who mostly initiated actual divorce court proceeding without making ANY exceptions for circumstances. I have NO interent in (let's see...how did you put it?) "establishing plausible deniability for a hypothetical best case scenario for the woman" as you seem to think. When the women are wrong, I take up for the men and vice versa. When someone decides to make a blanket observation, I tend to want to clarify that this across-the-board condemation may not be the right conclusion.
As for When someone decides to make a blanket observation, I tend to want to clarify that this across-the-board condemation may not be the right conclusion. I subscribe to the "walks like a duck" school. Do you see no value in being sceptical as to motive when people say they have to clarify the obvious?
I love the way you think! One of my biggest beefs is that the accounting of the money I send for "child support" is (according to the courts) none of my business. I don't know if it goes to the children (including groceries, housing, etc), or for a fur coat for my ex-wife.
Actually, what may be "obvious" to one may not be so "obvious" to another and just like blanket condemations - observations can sometimes come back to bite one in the buttocks.
Again, why would you suggest I learn how to communicate in a way that you find pleasing, rather than you learning how to communicate without provoking me?
Tell me, if someone is bothering to read FreeRepublic, do you really think a worry of them being THAT obtuse is credible?
Maybe because I don't have any fear of your resorting to physical violence if you become "provoked". Frankly, I couldn't conceivably care less whether you are "provoked" or not. My only point of contention was and IS those who make blanket condemations and don't expect to be challenged because of it. Period.
I don't have any real reason to care if I "understand" how you communicate either. It just seems so much to me that I'm suppose to make way for your "sacred cow" while you expect to be allowed to do an FDA inspection on mine. So you challenge away....and so will I.
Unfortunately it is easy to get caught up in the fine points of religious dogma and forget why we were there in the first place.
I agree, however, that it is important to have compatibility here, also.
Note, too, that the list works for either gender. Glad to be of help.
My analyst told me I just kept picking the wrong women (she was a woman) but I believe it goes beyond that.
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.