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."
I also agree that we need to go back to fault divorce, and that if fault is proven, that faulting party will be penalized in the property division as well as custody determinations. It would make a lot of peopel think twice before they throw the towel in (so to speak).
If you're familiar with the proposed (draconian) new bankruptcy laws, debtors have to go to financial counseling before filing for bankruptcy. Same thing should go for divorce, although I know that if one party wants out, most times all the counseling in the world won't help. Regardless, divorce should be difficult to obtain; there are adequate protections for women in abusive relationships today so that that won't be as big of an issue.
Pretty much.
From this shrink's perspective:
essentially:
Certainly poor parenting of the parents by THEIR parents plays a huge part . . . but that's often been too much modeling of SELFISHNESS and PRIDE as much as anything else.
I don't mean at all to be disagreeable, because I represent/have represented many fathers who seek custody of their children. It just appears to me that most mothers are better with the younger children than the fathers. Believe me, there are two fathers whom I am fighting like hell for in order to get their kids (one is particularly disgusting, where at a temporary hearing the fat pig accused my client of raping her, sexually abusing the kids, using drugs, and beating her - no police reports, and she didn't telll her mother, who testified, any of this), and they are clearly better than the mothers in these situations. I'm open to believing that I'm biased after looking at my own situation and that of my family (we married good women, what can I say).
Don't mean to pry, but any personal experience?
Good for you. :o)
M.S.A. § 518.17. Custody and support of children on judgment
Subdivision 1. The best interests of the child. (a) "The best interests of the child" means all relevant factors to be considered and evaluated by the court including:
(1) the wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody;
(2) the reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference;
(3) the child's primary caretaker;
(4) the intimacy of the relationship between each parent and the child;
(5) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with a parent or parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(6) the child's adjustment to home, school, and community;
(7) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
(8) the permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home;
(9) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; except that a disability, as defined in section 363.01, of a proposed custodian or the child shall not be determinative of the custody of the child, unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interest of the child;
(10) the capacity and disposition of the parties to give the child love, affection, and guidance, and to continue educating and raising the child in the child's culture and religion or creed, if any;
(11) the child's cultural background;
(12) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if related to domestic abuse, as defined in section 518B.01, that has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual, whether or not the individual alleged to have committed domestic abuse is or ever was a family or household member of the parent; and
(13) except in cases in which a finding of domestic abuse as defined in section 518B.01 has been made, the disposition of each parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact by the other parent with the child. The court may not use one factor to the exclusion of all others. The primary caretaker factor may not be used as a presumption in determining the best interests of the child. The court must make detailed findings on each of the factors and explain how the factors led to its conclusions and to the determination of the best interests of the child.
(b) The court shall not consider conduct of a proposed custodian that does not affect the custodian's relationship to the child.
In Minnesota, most of these situations are resolved prior to a trial with a guardian ad litem/custody evaluator peforming a custody investigation based upon these factors and making a recommendation to the court. Works pretty well.
Regarding visitation, I have conflicting thoughts. While I know how important it is for a child to have both parents present in their life, for many reasons not the least being so the child knows their parent loves them and they are not rejected, many cases of visitation disputes I'm involved in occur because the younger child typically will not want to leave the parent they're with, and when they do go visit the other parent, the first few days after visitation are spent "coming down" from the visit. I absolutley believe that a 50-50 split (alternating weeks being the most popular) is not at all good for children. They have no stability in their home, which is very important, and their bonding with both parents suffers. It's a problem with no solution, I fear, other than parents being able to stay together. That's why that recent study which stated that children are better off in homes with troubled marriages than being in tranquil homes with a divorced parent.
Mr. nopardons and I were married in 1967 ... that'll be 35 happy, wonderful, faithful years come May. Our wedding reception was at TAVERN ON THE GREEN, in N.Y.C. and was fantasic, great fun, and EXPENSIVE. Two week honeymoon in London , theatre almost every night, shopping, magic memories. He and I have ALWAYS had expensive tastes, saved for whatever we wanted and never bought what we couldn't afford to pay for at that moment, never bought anything just to be " IN ", but because WE wanted whatever we have purchased. Neither " hard times " ( everyone has them ! ) , death of family members, illnesses, nor anything else has shaken our love, devotion, and commitment to each other. We were best friends back then, and best friends to this day.
Just look at the comments, on this thread and others, by males ! No, you are NOT men ! You are little boys , saying that girls are evil, and or talking about never marrying, having sex but no marriage, and whinging about women being " gold diggers", emasculating ( the old " toothed vagina " fears ) sluts, etc. WHO WOULD EVEN WANT YOU GUYS ? GROW UP!
And , for you who indulge in " hate / reveile the rich " persifage, get over it. There is NOTHING " noble " in being poor or middle calss, and NOTHING inherintly " evil " in being wealthy.
onyx, FYI
The answer to the original question is three words:
NO FAULT divorces.
And ever will.
And respond I hope!
Salutations,
Doc
P.S. Check this out even if it's a while before you're back online. It's worth responding to.
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.