Posted on 03/18/2002 6:34:14 AM PST by AUgrad
Reuniting Fathers With Their Families
by Stuart A. Miller and Rich Zubaty
Eighty-five percent of prisoners, 78% of high school dropouts, 82% of teenage girls who become pregnant, the majority of drug and alcohol abusers—all come from single-mother-headed households. Less than 1% of any of these categories come from single-father-headed households. This seems to indicate that the problems children encounter are not related to single-parent households, but are related specifically to single-mother-headed households. So, should we blame the mothers or the fathers? Perhaps, neither. There is no question that father-absence has reached epidemic proportions. According to Wade Horn of the National Fatherhood Initiative, we must reverse the trend in seven to eight years or it will be too late to do so.
How has our government responded to this crisis? By continuing to drive fathers out of the family. It is bad enough that some fathers abandon their families, but it is unconscionable that our federal and state policies drive fathers away from their families. With 80+ percent of divorces involving children resulting in sole-mother-custody, combined with a “no man in the house rule” and “presumptive sole-mother-custody” in welfare cases, we are not blameless from a policy perspective. We must change our policies, practices and procedures to specifically include fathers in families. If not, we can be certain that social spending will continue to increase and we will be plagued with an ever burgeoning population of maladjusted children who will fill our prisons and wreak havoc on society.
Social research data reveal that our blind reliance only on the nurturing value of mothers is inadequate and misplaced. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, a child living with his/her divorced mother, compared to a child living with both parents, is “375% more likely to need professional treatment for emotional or behavioral problems and is almost twice as likely to repeat a grade of school, is more likely to suffer chronic asthma, frequent headaches, and/or bedwetting, develop a stammer or speech defect, suffer from anxiety or depression, and be diagnosed as hyperactive.”
However, these afflictions were surprisingly uncommon in the 15% of single-parent households headed by men. A study of all state child protective services agencies in the country--by the Children’s Rights Coalition, a child advocacy and research organization in Austin, Texas--found that biological mothers physically abuse their children at twice the rate of biological fathers. The majority of the rest of the time, children are abused because of single-mothers’ poor choices in the subsequent men in their lives. Incidences of abuse were almost non-existent in single-father-headed households.
The data show that placing children only with mothers is likely to be detrimental to children and society, so why do we continue public policies favoring sole-mother-placement? Have we become so paternalistic toward women that it anesthetizes our common sense?
Surprisingly few people realize that, until the end of WW I, U.S. laws and courts automatically placed the children of divorce not with their mothers, but with their fathers. For thousands of years societal conventions instructed the placement of children with their fathers in most cultures all over the globe. Why? Because it works. It puts children with their strongest protectors and it puts boys with their traditional guides to civilized manhood. Yet, these essential fatherhood roles—protector and civilizer—seem to have been forgotten, today.
Never before have fathers been cast aside as they have been in the United States during the last 30 to 40 years. Never before has such a strong society become as threatened as we are, for this solitary reason. Regrettably, as long as we continue to hold to the relatively new idea that only mothers are capable of being parents, and ignore the essential role of fathers, our children will remain at risk.
What is needed? Our Father in heaven and our fathers here on earth—as well as a society that values them, includes them, and encourages their involvement in their families.
March 18, 2002
Stuart A. Miller and Rich Zubaty are political analysts for the American Fathers Coalition in Washington, D.C.
I think this is a fair hypothesis. What would happen if we tracked down the fathers? Do you think it's more likely that they are normal, decent members of society, married, settled down, and raising normal children, or that they are drug using losers who can't hold down a job, or in prison themselves?
Now let me guess. It's all the women's fault. The men would be wonderful fathers but the mothers won't let them.
I don't believe the article said that and I know I certainly didn't. I believe the point is you should not dismiss the father as a viable parent just because he isn't the mother. Women do not have a monopoly on effective parenting.
Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, but what percentage of single-parent homes are headed by fathers?
Men in general tend to see the big picture. Moms sweat the details. That is why God intended that a family be comprised of one husband and one wife who have children TOGETHER, so that those children, male and female, will have the best possible environment in which to grow up.
Fathers most often provide the discipline; mothers provide the nuruturing.
That isn't to say mothers can't discipline (mine sure could) or that fathers can't nurture (I think I'm not half bad at that with my own daughter), but their various strengths compliment one another in the rearing of children.
BTW, I've been on both sides of the fence. My first marriage ended in divorce when my first wife decided "life was passing her by" and took her "friends'" advice to "get rid of the jerk" (defined as "any male").
So I was pretty much shut out of their upbringing.
I remarried "on the rebound" as they say, a very ill-advised decision that also ended in divorce within a few years. But this time, I got custody of my daughter from that marriage, and have been rearing her ever since.
I think I've done well as a parent for my kid, and although my present (and future) wife pitches in a great deal, my daughter still looks to me as the primary parent.
She loves her mother, and visits her when she can, but she would rather be with me, where she feels "safe".
Her mother reared four older sons, two of whom are in jail now, and all of whom have police records. The woman NEVER COULD discipline worth a hoot.
From this I would say no more than 10%. Does that make the data unreliable or useless? Debatable.
From the article:
in the 15% of single-parent households headed by men.
The laws cited in early cases related to guardianship standards imposed on state agencies who placed wards of the state. The fitness of the parents was basically adjudicated in the same hearing that granted custody. All these cases involved extraordinary conditions of neglect or dependency. The same cases and others acknowledged the right of a father to maintain custody of his children without proof that he was unfit. The burden was on the accuser. The standard is strict scrutiny.
There is no longer any attempt to justify the use of placement criteria (best interest) when awarding custody. The fact is, the standard is not justified when fitness is not an issue. The law was highjacked from juvenile and guardianship statutes, which dealt with wards of the state. It may not be an easy argument to win, but I have found nothing to dispute this history. Any takers?
The question is, who took care of the child before the two split up?
If the mother has done all the child-rearing, and then gets a support order, and then all of a sudden the man wants custody, it's going to look like he just wants out of child support. Similarly, if the man just shows up out of the blue, he's going to have to start with visitation and prove himself.
On the other hand, if the father acted like Mr. Mom before the two split up, he's got a very good shot at custody, split custody, or shared custody.
Most men are satisfied with visitation, at most. Some don't want anything to do with the kid. My guess is that the kids who grow up to be criminals were abandoned by their fathers, and that the dad wasn't much to begin with.
The question is, who took care of the child before the two split up?
If the mother has done all the child-rearing, and then gets a support order, and then all of a sudden the man wants custody, it's going to look like he just wants out of child support. Similarly, if the man just shows up out of the blue, he's going to have to start with visitation and prove himself.
On the other hand, if the father acted like Mr. Mom before the two split up, he's got a very good shot at custody, split custody, or shared custody.
Most men are satisfied with visitation, at most. Some don't want anything to do with the kid. My guess is that the kids who grow up to be criminals were abandoned by their fathers, and that the dad wasn't much to begin with.
No, the question is, is one parent incapable of taking care of the child?
The burden of proof is on those seeking to diminish a protected right (to parent). Roles assumed during a marriage have little to do with the capability to adapt to a split. Fitness is the only issue between competing parents. The law is well settled, but often abused.
The problem is that he has the burden of proof and is not on equal footing with the "hallowed" mother. Notice your expression for being a good caretaker is "Mr. Mom.
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.