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.
No, the burden of proof is on those who seek to diminish the right.
Until people understand the proper way to argue this point, the courts will be free to do what they want. There is a presumption of fitness for both parents. You can hold a judges feet to the fire on this. These days, however, it may take an appeal. Is it worth it? I think it is.
Understand that but the presumption of fitness does not always extend to the father.
Your guess is worth about what I'm paying for it here on the internet. This data applies equally to mothers who were "abandoned," mothers who don't remember who they spread their legs for, and mothers who voluntarily opted out of that whole icky "man thing."
Even if one were to accept your man hating version of reality at face value, the data is irrefutable - women are generally failures at raising kids alone.
Good point. If men are expected to behave like women in order to be considered qualified as full time parents, then the deck is purposely stacked against them in custody battles. It would seem that the small percentage of women who are successful in raising their kids alone are the small minority who are capable of being "Mrs. Dad."
The standard does, the practice does not. That's what the appeal process is for. It's an issue of law, not an issue of an abuse of discression. The standards of review are not the same.
In Virginia, and my understanding is that this is true in most states, the standard is the best interests of the child.
Where one parent has a good track record as primary caretaker and the other parent has no track record as primary caretaker, courts are not likely to switch primary custody from the parent with a good track record to the parent with no track record.
Where both parents have contributed so much care that the track record of both is well known, and good, then the parties are on equal footing, in my opinion.
People who do things like accusing strangers of "man-hating" tend to have chips on their shoulders, and people with chips on their shoulders have a hard time in court, I've found.
People who feel like the whole world is against them and the deck is stacked have a way of making it come true.
I believe that young children should have a stay-at-home parent, if at all possible. I also believe parents should stay together for the sake of their children if at all possible. I believe that if parents cannot stay together for the sake of the children, then they should cooperate in promoting the best interests of the children, and treat each other with respect and dignity.
If the parents split up, believe that joint legal custody is best, and that the children should spend as much time as possible with both parents.
Based on what some of the people have posted on this thread, and others, I must have very unrealistic expectations.:)
Seriously, though, I know that not all parents are good parents, and not all divorces are amicable. But the people who are good parents and treat each other with respect are the ones who deserve commendation.
I believe that young children should have a stay-at-home parent, if at all possible. I also believe parents should stay together for the sake of their children if at all possible. I believe that if parents cannot stay together for the sake of the children, then they should cooperate in promoting the best interests of the children, and treat each other with respect and dignity.
If the parents split up, believe that joint legal custody is best, and that the children should spend as much time as possible with both parents.
Based on what some of the people have posted on this thread, and others, I must have very unrealistic expectations.:)
Seriously, though, I know that not all parents are good parents, and not all divorces are amicable. But the people who are good parents and treat each other with respect are the ones who deserve commendation.
I agree with this 100%. But I'd still have to characterize your generalizations painting all divorced mothers and delinquent children as victims of negligent fathers as anti-man. I do note that you changed your tone in your later posts, so I apologize if I have you wrong.
One more thing... to insinuate bitterness over a divorce court proceeding into my sentiments couldn't be more presumptious, or more wrong, thankfully.
I try very hard to get my clients to reconcile. If they can't reconcile, then I try to get them to settle.
But sometimes you gotta fight, and it ain't cheap. Best to get a lawyer who knows what he/she is doing, who can tell you whether you've got a chance, and if you do, then you just have to hunker down.
Lawyers who bleed their clients dry just to make money deserve to go to hell, IMO.
Parenting is a long recognized liberty interest. Guardianship is a statutory right, a privilege given by, and managed by the state. As you know, the standards of review are quite different. Custody statutes have always been enacted to regulate the placement of wards. Because the revised (compiled) statutes are no longer organized by subject matter, the revisors office, welfare agencies, and the bar association, along with special interest groups have effectively mixed laws dealing with different subject matter (guardianship/domestic relations, "child support"/support money, lawn maintenance/"restricted use" applicators, etc.). A review of the history in your state will bear this out.
These defences are still available for those who dare to buck the status quo. My research is well documented. Look at the cases used to justify your earliest decisions. You will find references to guardianship regulations and succesive cases will cite these.
If some of you are scared to death about defending a fathers natural right to the custody of his children, consider what so called equal rights and no-fault divorce has done for the institution of marriage and for illigitimacy rates. That is not to say a good share of mothers shouldn't have custody. A good share, these days, should. That's another problem. The incentives are all wrong. Long established natural rights are being ignored and unlawfully compromised.
This article is about as statistically logical as if my fourth grader had written it.
I'm all for fathers. I had one and my children have one. Their value is priceless. Could we just not use such stupid statistics?
I would say that even within the church most fathers are not doing the disciplining. It's just not happening. Most fathers come home and want to be buddies to their kids, but don't want to discipline. That's what I see, anyway. My husband was the same way, but has finally matured into a disciplinarian. Good parenting--all around--is in decline. It's not just the single mothers. I see A LOT of out of control kids in the schools around here, and most of them have parents.
And there's not really enough evidence to show that men are any better at it. Take all those kids been raised by single mothers in the inner cities, and turn them over to their fathers, and wanna' guess what would happen to the "statistics"?
Single, irresponsible, impoverished parents are not very good parents. That's about all we can deduce right now.
I agree up to a point. Unfortunately, around middle school the whole thing starts to break down. I saw some kids in high school go through real hell being ping ponged back and forth between parents. At some point, "the best interest of the child" standard really needs to prevail.
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.