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 abusersall 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 Childrens 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 rolesprotector and civilizerseem 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 earthas 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.
That's OK. The public schools are working on this problem. Many of them have banned boyish behavior, boyish energy, and traditional boy games. They've gone as far as to ban recess and eliminate the on-premises playgrounds fer cryin' out loud. For the intractible boys who rebel and refuse to act like girls, there's Ritalin.
Can a father deny visitation for mom, after showing reason for the divorce? If there was sufficient grounds, yes. Does no fault divorce take this into account? No. Requiring grounds for divorce protect the children from indiscriminate denial of parental care. Where there is grounds for a divorce, there may be grounds for such denial. No-fault laws deal only with the marriage. The resultant implications for custody were not considered, I imagine because legislatures were confused about the application of the "best interest" standard in awarding custody. Had the argument been made that some, or many fathers may not allow visitation where no cause had been established, the idea would have died.
You also mentioned a lack of legal authority on this issue. If the common law right to paternal custody was abolished, I am unaware of the change. Case law, on the other hand has affirmed this right over and over. The case law clearly describes extrordinary circumstances justifying denial of this right. Parental rights are well established. A father's right over that of a mother is also affirmed. It's the court's improper use of the best interest doctrine that has muddied the legal waters. It can, however, be traced to application of laws dealing with guardianship and placement of wards(not guardianship by nature).
You are clearly the most clueless person on the surface of the earth.
I would say that guys need to plow through all that, and pursue at least joint residential custody.
I grant that a lot of guys are too much craven cowards to do so.
Anyway, all of that is distinct from the cases where perfectly fit fathers who DO want custody are royally shafted and rendered "visitors".
Such a rendering is a power that family courts should just plain not have.
No court should be able to deprive either parent of 50% of the time with their children, unless the parent is proven unfit under the strictest scrutiny standard.
Family court is a limited jurisdiction court. The problem with these courts is identifying which laws regulate particular issues, that may or may not be related to your dissolution action. Are they proceeding under juvenile court authority?
Parental termination laws are applied in a family court proceeding under juvenile court, or probate powers. A marriage dissolution is also handled in family court, and may include a custody determination, but, only when the state already has control of the children.
The termination of parental rights does require a strict scrutiny standard. Guardianship placement criteria for a state ward does not. They are controled by "best interest" standards. How many fathers do you know that have objected to a court assuming control of his children in a dissolution action? If a father posesses the right to guardianship by nature, a trial to terminate these rights is required before a court can lawfully take jurisdiction of a custody action in a dissolution proceeding. It's called jurisdiction of the cause.
As to joint custody, that kind of arrangement is the perrogotive of the father, if he maintains his right to the custody of his children. I don't know many men who would deny the kids' mother fair visitation, but the power to determine what is in the best interest of the children is vested in a father. This natural right is routinely abridged through trickery in a dissolution action. Normally, a father voluntarily stipulates to a custody arrangement, which is his right, but what he is not told is the court cannot interfere with his decision without cause. No-fault divorce does not mean no-fault custody. The two issues are regulated by different laws.
You'll find the "best interest" statutes were slipped into the dissolution chapter (revised statutes) without a clear reference to their original source. That's the problem with revised statutes. The purpose and subject matter of the law is described in it's title. When they are "compiled" in the revised statutes, the title is only found by a search through the statute's history. The heading of a chapter in the revised statutes does not always adequately describe the purpose of each provision.
You'll also find the case law relying on "best interest" standards are justified in cases dealing with extrordinary circumstances, where a court finds a parent's right to custody is challenged. The authority cited in these early cases are juvenile laws, justified by the state's inherent parens patriae powers. The reach of these laws are controled by the extent of this power. While it has been determined by the courts that the power will justify terminating, or temporarily suspending parental rights on purely economic grounds, the action otherwise relies on a finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
Changing the public's perception regarding a patriarchial system of government is required, if we want to accomplish any true reform in the area of family law. Challenging the court's application of the law is a daunting task. Are you ready to stand up for your rights?
Now factor in an equal rights amendment. Not yet passed in Minnesota, thank God. Can the people agree to change our form of government by such an amendment? Who becomes the head of the household in such a case? It doesn't work. It is necessary that men and women have different rights in matters of domestic relations.
Now you're catching on. That's why mostly women file for divorce since no-fault "liberated" them, and since the courts lost respect for natural rights, and since lawyers stopped challenging the courts taking charge of children without adjudicating the fitness of lawful guardians.
Obviously, not enough. That's the point.
Your fourth grader would have done a better job.
Rita Santucci was with my father in California after the war. That’s what I just found out from my Aunt. They had a baby boy. I wish I could find my half brother. Dad is pretty sick and frail. Lives in Reno.
Dad passed away 5/23/09.
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.