A Knight Defending Fatherhood

Fathering Magazine ^ | May 26, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

A Knight Defending Fatherhood

May 26, 2002
By Roger F. Gay

You can tell this is an election year because politicians, bureaucrats, and TV "talking heads" are bashing fathers. In the mid 1970s Congress decided to get the federal government involved in domestic relations law. Ever since, the war against dads has driven gender politics, expansion of the welfare system, and increased spending. By the early 1990s it seemed commonly accepted that battering women and abandoning wives and children to welfare was a character flaw genetically fixed by every Y-chromosome.

Enter Stephen Baskerville -- a knight defending fatherhood. Baskerville might not be what many people imagine as "one of those fathers' rights guys." A political scientist at Howard University, Dr. Baskerville's files are filled with scholarly articles with lots of citations to other scholarly articles, a growing number of which he has written. In his appearances on television and radio however, as well as in the articles he has written for the general public, one might occasionally sense a certain irritation with mis-educated public remarks about fathers.

In an article in this month's Liberty Magazine entitled "The Myth of Deadbeat Dads," Baskerville offers to educate the rich and famous. He reports that TV host Bill O'Reilly recently declared that "There is an epidemic of child abandonment in America, mainly by fathers." "Sen. Evan Bayh has attacked 'irresponsible' fathers in several speeches. Campaigning for president, Al Gore promised harsher measures against 'deadbeat dads,' including sending more to jail. The Clinton administration implemented numerous child-support 'crackdowns,' including the ominously named Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act." In response, Republicans "want to send the strongest possible message that parents cannot walk away from their children."

"Special interest groups demonized fathers," says Baskerville. "They called them 'deadbeat dads' and criminalized them. The result is a system that traces newly hired employees, shifts the burden of proof to the accused, and throws fathers in jail for losing their jobs." He is not alone in that opinion. His article sports 46 citations from a mixture of sources, including books and academic journals, the popular press, and even relevant Web sites.

"The system of collecting child support is no longer one of requiring men to take responsibility for their offspring, as most people believe. The combination of 'no fault' divorce and the new enforcement law has created a system that pays mothers to divorce their husbands and remove children from fathers."

Baskerville presents a convincing argument, well supported by research and other commentary. Quoting an article entitled "The Strange Politics of Child Support"; "By allowing a faithless wife to keep her children and a sizable portion of her former spouse's income, current child-support laws have combined with no fault jurisprudence to convert wedlock into a snare for many guiltless men." (Bryce Christensen, Society, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Nov.-Dec. 2001, p. 65)).

Baskerville adds, "This 'snare' can easily amount to a prison sentence without trial."

His work and commentary have captured the attention of the fathers rights movement. Dave Usher has been a leading activist since 1987 and served for nine years on the exectutive boards of the two largest fathers rights groups in America. He knows that political opinion has been influenced by false information and how difficult it has been to report serious problems with policies that effect fathers. Too few "researchers" who have witten about fathers and fatherhood actually did any research. "We need a few dozen more Baskervilles," he says. "He is a solid researcher."

Although there are many wrongs yet to be righted, the fathers rights movement does not face the extreme prejudice that it once did. Hundreds of organizations and conferences, loads of scholarship, and countless Web sites have sprung up over the past few years focused on issues of concern to fathers. Dr. Baskerville organized one of the first fatherhood conferences three years ago at Howard University. Conferences on fathers issues and fatherhood have been organized and supported by the Ford Foundation, the U.S. Department of Labor, the state of California, and other well established institutions.

Ironically, the Democratic Party -- the party that started the war against fathers in the mid 1970s is out to capture the male vote. Before they finalize their strategy someone should conduct a poll to see how many males age 25-50 want to be their own worst political enemies. With fatherhood knights like Stephen Baskerville around, father-bashing will not be as easy to get away with as it used to be.

---------------------------------------------

Roger F. Gay is the leader and lead researcher of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology, an R&D project focusing on the science, engineering, and application of child support guidelines.

[RogerFGay]

This link might work:

The Myth of Deadbeat Dads

[William Terrell]

Would you mind explaining this: "Men had a habit of dying much younger than their wives, so over several generations, women managed to hold a lot of real property."

Many widows were young. In times of war or conflict, it was men who died. If the woman died intestate, the property was divided among her children. If she had a will, it would have been awarded as her will directed. Women in general made sure any daughters were well inherited. This is just the way it was.

Women at that time held at least half the privately owned property and a controled a good portion of the corporately or business owned property, if not outright ownership. Women owned and controlled many businesses in those times, their civil status modified to allow torts and other civil action against them as owners.

Are you talking about today, or early last century?

What we have today is nothing like the way it used to be. Women were advised to marry in many cases using the argument that it was the way to increase her property. What property a women brought into a marriage remained hers. The husband controlled the property during the marriage, but could dispose of it only with her consent.

Divorce, when it happened, had to have a basis in damage: infidelity, nonsupport, physical cruelty, abandonment, and in a lot of cases, civil death (long prison terms). If the charge went against the woman, she would retain the property she brought into the marriage. If the charge went against the man, his property was awardable as alimony. This was before the 19th amendment, which made women taxpayers and gave them civil responsibilites and duties.

The old system was heavily loaded in favor of women, even in the face of debts.

I also think the property rights laws varied among the states.

Only very minor differences. This area was controlled by the common law in every state but Louisana which used the Roman civil law.

Furthermore, since many Americans lived on farms in times past (and not too many of them were wealthy), that farm was a family enterprise. Widows can run a farm by themselves. Ditto for the family business.

Not getting your point here.

Women may have owned wealth, but I believe you exaggerate the extent of the wealth they held.

The condition of women at that time was more or less defined by the custom of coverture. They were short on civil duties, but also equally short on civil responsibilites. They were long on property, personal and real. When they married, their business for the most part was controlled by their husband, but the courts rode herd on that relationship, and, in any controversy involving that relationship, heavily ruled in favor the woman.

The notions people have today about the past customs (and not too long past) are patently false, and much of it outright lies made by people who knew the truth. You have been lied to and made to think false information and implication are true. If you check the support behind the 19th amendment you will find a lot of backing from financial institutions, because when she inherited property with a note attached they could do nothing drastic to recover it.

In all things important to a woman, she not only had custom and public support but legal and court support. There are even cases where the court ordered a husband to pay more attention to his wife, and it was enforced by the executive department of the state!

All in all, if I were a woman, I would much rather be one under the old system of law than this one. There were downsides, of course, but downsides only as seen from the viewpoint of a male nature, not a female nature.

[discostu]

In a healthy society the only percentage that's ever "good enough" is 100, even though it's unacheivable we shouldn't accept defeat.

What's funny about this "debate" is that absolutely no one on the supposed side of the dad LISTENS. I've said REPEATEDLY that I don't want to screw over the dads that actually pay their bills, but we can't protect the deadbeats. The situation we had 20 years ago was exactly like you think is a good idea, abandoned wives had no choice but to take it on the chin, no choice. Literally every company in this country had more ability to collect on bad debt (through collection agencies, the courts, if the debt was sufficient even wage garnishment) than the mother of some one's kids. If that doesn't strike you as sick then I have to think there's something seriously wrong with you.

I notice no one even contemplated responding to my idea. What if we gave spouses that were supposed to receive child support the exact same bill collecting capabilities as corporations? With the same proof requirements. See nobody is proposing we go to some mid-level. Everybody working againt the current system wants to go back to how it was in the 70s, and that was no good. And letting people collect on bad debt isn't socialism, if you think it is you need to spend some real time in school learning what big words mean.

[joathome]

No, I don't believe I'm misinformed. Women inherited wealth. They rarely ever controlled their own wealth.

" The husband controlled the property during the marriage, but could dispose of it only with her consent."

Considering that the husband was the head of the family (and still is in mine), and that divorce was a scandal in most all circles, it would not have been difficult for husbands to "dispose" of their wives wealth as they saw fit.

[discostu]

I agree 100%. But we can't forget that there is a real problem that industry was created to fix. The industry might be bad, might even be worse than the real problem, but we shouldn't abandon the problem because the first attempt to fix it was bad.

[discostu]

Because enforcement is the root of the problem. The fed is over involved now because 20 years ago a deadbeat dad could walk away from his child support obligation and face no repercussion. The only possible way to get rid of the current bad fix is to have a better fix to put in his place. But it seems absolutely no one on the fathers' side of the debate is willing to do this, or even listen to proposals. This thread is a classic example of what's going on in this area of social debate. There have been 3 responses to my post where I laid out a possible solution that I think could make both sides happy and not one of them has even mentioned it.

[William Terrell]

Make that widows "can't" run a farm by themselves.

They could and did. They hired help or used the labor of their children. If the farm was a profit making enterprise, they hired a ramrod to control and direct the help. Please, do not take the counsel of fiction in novels and movies to form your knowledge of those times. Most do not relect the truth of the man/woman relationship then under the law. If you want to get a true picture, read the law from that time and read appelate court cases using that law.

[William Terrell]

In a healthy society the only percentage that's ever "good enough" is 100, even though it's unacheivable we shouldn't accept defeat.

Sorry, I can't continue this discussion in the face of this statement. I didn't read the rest of what you said. If you can say that, I, personally, can't give credence to anything else you say. Waste of time. Bye.

[SauronOfMordor]

The subject was divorce made way too attractive to women as the solution to any and every piddling marital problem because the court will automatically grant them custody of the kids and 60% or 70% of dad's take home pay. That women petition for something like 80% of all divorces backs up this claim.

Two friends of mine have gone thru divorce in the last couple of years. In BOTH cases, the wife started playing around, then decides to divorce the husband and rape him in court so she can live comfortably with her new boyfriend.

[William Terrell]

No, I don't believe I'm misinformed.

I'm sure. Most who are, don't.

They rarely ever controlled their own wealth.

I've said all I can say. Believe what you want. I would strongly recommend you read up on the topic and investigate your subjectively held convictions. You may be surprised.

[discostu]

So you're for a society that's willing to settle for 2nd rate.

Just came over from a thread about the death of the American car business, why am I not surprised by this attitude. It's exactly the same mentality.

Any healthy entity (person, company or nation) will always strive for perfection. Once you're willing to accept otherwise you've already lost.

[RogerFGay]

Because enforcement is the root of the problem.

I have to tell you that I'm leaning the same way as William Terrell in post #108. Your statement suggests that you haven't read any of my posts, even though I've taken the time to give longer more detailed explations.

I'm going to assume just a short bit longer that you might be young and there are a few things you haven't figured out yet, and you have some personal "issues" to deal with. But I don't know yet how much longer.

A couple of comments on your 100% rule. What are you willing to give up personally to make that happen? Would you be willing to spend the rest of your life in a forced labor camp, under maximum control (whatever that is and whatever it takes) along with everyone else in the world, to assure that nobody would break the rules? With everyone subjugated in such a camp, who would run it, who would enforce the rules? And secondly, don't you just want your situation fixed? 100% doesn't really matter does it?

Tech. note: maximum verses optimum (look it up)

HINT:

Main Entry: op·ti·mum
Pronunciation: 'äp-t&-m&m
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural op·ti·ma /-m&/; also -mums
Etymology: Latin
Date: 1879
1 : the amount or degree of something that is most favorable to some end; especially : the most favorable condition for the growth and reproduction of an organism
2 : greatest degree attained or attainable under implied or specified conditions
- optimum adjective

[RogerFGay]

Any healthy entity (person, company or nation) will always strive for perfection.

But "perfect" isn't perfect. See last post.

[discostu]

If you actually stopped twisting words and responded to what was actually being said instead of what you want the person to say this could have been settled peacefully in two posts two days ago.

You've consistently ignored my repeated stated position as to WHY enforcement is important (again, because in a wide open system people are more obligated to pay their electric bill than child support). You're continuing to ignore my proposed solution which would kick the fed out AND give a level of useful enforecement.

I'm forced to think you have alterior motives. That in truth you do want a wide open system that allows men to walk away from familial obligations. What is so terribly wrong with holding people responsible for the debt that they've incurred. I've thuroughly read all of your stuff, and yes I agree that the federal program is bad. Again why is it I can admit the areas where you're right but you find it so difficult to admit somebody else might be right? Took me half a day to get you to admit that there really are deadbeat dads. Apparently there's no way to get you to admit that actual deadbeat dads should have to pay their debts just like any other deadbeat.

And as for you and William if you'd actually read your history books you'd find that the economic system that allows for the greatest strivings towards perfection is capitalism; communism/ socialism produced 3rd rate garbage when it produced anything at all. So as for what I'd be willing to give up the answer is NOTHING, giving things up means no longer striving for perfection. Perfection means having your cake and eating it too. We can never get there, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

[RogerFGay]

You haven't suggested any idea related to perfection in any sense. What you're suggesting is simply a maximization on one variable: cheap and dirty. What you should have learned by now from this discussion is that it's a dirty idea, it's cheap in concept; but it's not cheap to implement: in this case as in many the cost is infinite and is so in more than just dollars; trying to actually reach that maximum does much more harm (virtually infinite more) than good (virtually no good at all). That's often the case generally. I'm really offering you a valuable insight, the kind of thing that really smart people learn in college; learn and think about the difference between maximum and optimum.

[Lorianne]

So what? I know at least 3 cases where it was the husband who broke his vows and the marriage broke up. I know of even more cases where the husband broke his vows and they divorce, preferring to work things out. In one of those cases the wife got herpes from her philandering husband. Yet she stayed with him, Lord and she only knows why.

I know of one case where the husband left his wife for another woman but they never divorced. They've been living apart but still married for 20 years. The husband has changed women several times. The wife has remained faithful to the "marriage" for the 20 years he's been absent. She's a devout Catholic so she would never remarry even if they divorced. Besides, she believes they'll get back together some day.

We don't know what all goes on in private in people's lives. People put up with a lot for years before a marriage ends. Sure, some people divorce at the drop of a hat, but I'll wager not that many.

[discostu]

You obviously have completely ignored my suggestion. You have also refused to give forth your own suggestion and when asked declared that line of questioning rude. At this point it is clear that yes indeed you do have an alterior motive. All you really want is to put things back to the old days so that fathers can walk away from their debt to their children. Your clear inability to even consider any other system, your absolute worship of destroying the existing system and leaving nothing in place so that ex-wives of deadbeat dads have no choice but to "take it on the chin" as William said shows that you really don't care about the situation. You can't even come up with a cogent reason why ex-wives shouldn't even be allowed to turn the deadbeat dads over to collection agencies like every other creditor in the country is allowed to do. According to your position child support is the least important debt a man can incur, and if he doesn't feel like paying it no big deal.

No wonder people mourn for the death of the American family.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Two friends of mine have gone thru divorce in the last couple of years. In BOTH cases, the wife started playing around, then decides to divorce the husband and rape him in court so she can live comfortably with her new boyfriend."

Nahhh... that never happens... those kind of things are always the husband's fault. Like the cases where one spouse maxes out multiple credit cards to ridiculous five figure sums and then obtains new accounts and repeats the process as the other spouse scrambles and struggles to keep up... the problem is always the same... either it's the husband's fault for running up the debt himself, or it's the husbands fault for earning too little to keep up with his poor deprived wife's shopping habits. This causes as much divorce as infidelity.

[Nick Danger]

All you really want is to put things back to the old days so that fathers can walk away from their debt to their children.

It would probably be helpful if you would stick to your own proposals and stop putting words in the other fellow's mouth. You're not being persuasive with that act, you're just sounding like a guy waving his arms around emotionally.

Your proposal to turn debt collection over to what amounts to private collection agencies is one that few conservatives should object to, especially since the government appears to be wasting most of the money they are currently spending on enforcement. Your proposal does not, however, deal with the other piece of the puzzle, which is that the award amounts themselves are being set by systems and procedures that date from an era when bogus research produced by feminist activists with little regard for truth ruled the day. We have a bunch of horrible laws that date from that era, and these support-level algorithms are among them. Mr. Gay appears to have spent considerable time working and researching in this area, and if you were a little less intent on labeling him instead of hearing what he has to say, you might learn something. It is simply not true that all attempts to make child support awards less onerous are motivated by a secret desire to abandon. You keep going there, and it's annoying. Please stop it.

[Lorianne]

Like the cases where one spouse maxes out multiple credit cards to ridiculous five figure sums and then obtains new accounts and repeats the process as the other spouse scrambles and struggles to keep up... the problem is always the same... either it's the husband's fault for running up the debt himself, or it's the husbands fault for earning too little to keep up with his poor deprived wife's shopping habits. This causes as much divorce as infidelity.

Got any stats on this wild assertion? Seems like some of you people make up all kinds of stuff as you go along.

Yes, addiction DOES break up marriages. There are many types of addiction; gambling, drugs/alcohol, compulsive shopping, compulsive eating , etc. Both men and women fall prey to addictions. If the couple has really tried to get these things resolved and they can't, then divorce is the only real alternative.