|
Periodically we make important articles and books
available to people in our community who make decisions which directly impact the lives of
our children - Judges, lawyers, law-guardians, elected officials policy makers and custody
evaluators. This is such an article.
Upon completion of his medical degree, Dr. Fay
performed many hours of community service in New Yorks poorest neighborhoods. He
addressed our state convention in 1996 and remarked that, During my work in
inner-city health clinics, not once did I see a child without clothes or without
shoes.I did see many children without fathers.
This article, The Disenfranchised Father
by Robert Fay, MD appeared in the American Journal of Family Law, Spring 1995. Dr.
Fay is a pediatrician in Schenectady, NY and successfully sued in federal court for the
right to review his childrens school records at will. He is a member of the Fathers
Rights Association and is active in our state organization. Dr. Fay received our Volunteer
of the Year Award in 1996.
If you would like to discuss these matters with me
or members of our Executive Board, please call.
Sincerely,
David Torke
President, Fathers Rights Association of WNY
THE DISENFRANCHISED FATHER
ROBERT E. FAY, M.D. - Schenectady, New York
Divorce is one of lifes greatest traumas. It
is a process—not an event—that begins much earlier and continues years after the
granting of the decree. It is especially painful when children are involved—often an
emotional, social, and economic disaster for all concerned.
The "American way of divorce" (mother gets
"custody"; father gets "visitation" and financial child support
obligation) is based on outmoded, erroneous, and damaging concepts concerning men’s
and women’s parenting roles, abilities, and parent-child relationships.
2
As such, it serves primarily to prolong and intensify the suffering and thereby to inflict
great emotional harm on our children.
Today, while we rightly address the problems of
single mothers and "their" children, we ignore the plight of the
"other" parent. We assume, as Robert Bork did, that the other parent is really
no longer a parent. Implicit in this damaging myth is that noncustodial parents want it
that way.
As a society, we must come to grips with the obvious
social reality that parental integrity begets parental responsibility, while parental disenfranchisement
quite logically begets parental despair, dysfunction, and even disappearance. This
tragic symptom triad constitutes the "destroyed father syndrome," a rampant and
terrible psychosocial affliction that is treatable and, more importantly, preventable. As
with all "diseases," a thorough understanding of its etiology is essential
before fruitful efforts at treatment (and prevention) can reasonably be expected.
The destroyed parent syndrome is not a disease
peculiar to males. It is a human problem, seen frequently in mothers, too, when parental
destruction is their lot.3
As for the plight of single mothers and
"their" children, we fail to acknowledge that "their" children are
also his children, and that these children suffer as much, or more, from the loss of their
father as they do from a diminution of family income. I have seen the psychological
carnage, and it is the lack of a parent, not lack of food or shoes, from which they
primarily and most severely suffer. While we decry the "feminization of
poverty," we ignore the "pediatrization of father loss" and the
"masculinization of child loss" and ignorantly picture the fathers who have lost
their children and parenthood as miserable, selfish, non-caring oafs.
While society has finally acknowledged that women
are more than "baby machines" and are deserving of equal economic opportunity
(whether or not they are earning money), it refuses to recognize that men are more than
"working machines" and are concomitantly deserving of equal domestic/parenting
opportunity (whether or not they are doing much, or as much, child care). Women can
hold important and stressful jobs, and men can render loving and nurturing care to babies,
and these tasks can be accomplished before, within, or after marriage, as circumstances
permit.4
Fathers need and want to parent (not visit) their children,
just as mothers do.5
Children need and want nurturing, not visiting, from both their parents.
6
Fathers need
and want to parent (not visit) their children, just as mothers do.
Why are "absent" fathers absent? Why are
"deadbeat" fathers dead? Are they as callous as presented, or were they
"killed" first and then accused of being dead?
The destruction of fathers and fatherhood occurs routinely, albeit subtly and unconsciously,
7 after divorce or an out
of wedlock pregnancy, and the damage to children resulting from these situations may be
lifelong.8
How and when does this happen? How can we prevent this appalling and destructive psychosocial process?
I will address these questions subsequently, and propose courses of action which would be of long-term benefit
to children presently or soon to be facing the catastrophic consequences of postdivorce parent loss.
STAGE 1: THE SEEDS OF PARENTAL DESTRUCTION
A father is a
biologic necessity but a social accident.9
Today’s young men and young fathers (as well as
their female counterparts) are overtly and covertly daily saturated with sexist and
erroneous messages that women are loving, nurturing, and inherently knowledgeable
and in control with infants and small children, whereas men, are non-caring, ignorant,
helpless, and scared. Print media, religious publications, and the advertising industry
convey that message, and they do it with regularity.
The Robitussin/Dr. Mom commercials recently seen on
national television convey the clear message that mothers are concerned with, and in
charge of, their children’s illnesses, and that fathers want it that way.
I find the comment in a baby care instruction
publication by a major and reputable infant formula company, relative to father’s
potential participation in the bathing of his baby, to be uniquely and particularly
repugnant
Babies are so
intrigued by the water and getting clean makes them feel so good that chances are
he’ll want to help. As long as he follows the same safety measures you do,
there’s no reason why he shouldn’t.
The message is clear that a baby in distress, or
displeased, or irritable, or with dirty diapers, would clearly be beyond the capabilities
and desires of a father and clearly calls for a mother’s guidance and care. Again,
the "oaf" image is paramount
These messages —constant, consistent, and
persuasive—are not challenged nor are they ignored by the great majority of fathers
(or mothers) of young children. They represent a part of a continuum of messages that have
been sent ever since they were children (mothers love, fathers work and support;
mothers nurture, fathers discipline and support mother’s ideas; there is
nothing like a mother’s love) and that they have both come to accept as natural and
"right." These messages are sexist and damaging—as much so as those that
tell us that women can’t make it in stressful, high-responsibility jobs. Society is
rightly challenging the latter. Incredibly, it continues to vigorously embrace the former
message, to the continuing detriment of the children, mothers, and fathers whom it affects
What practicing pediatrician has not seen a loving
father, holding his baby in the waiting room, nurturing her, perhaps feeding or changing
her, who on entering the examination room immediately lays the baby down and then steps
back so that mother can stand next to the infant, in the "primary parent"
posture, so as not to embarrass or demean her or her "motherhood"?
Many young fathers have admitted to being
embarrassed by the intense love and feelings they have for their babies. Some men take
this embarrassment and pressure a bit farther and defer liberally to mothers some of the
infant care they would even like to do.10
Many young mothers,
threatened by a husband who cares "too much" for his baby, actually encourage
the father to take a back seat. Infant care is their job, and a reflection of their
identity as mothers. A father who is too involved threatens that identity.
There thus develops a covert partnership in primary
care assignments to the social and parental "advantage" of, and for the
perceived psychological benefit of, the young mother,
11 who in the
beginning may be just as scared or ignorant as the father regarding her baby’s care
needs.
Father represses his "abnormal" desires to
render intimate or "primary" care to his infant and either avoids this care
entirely or performs it in a limited and "pinch-hitting" manner only.
12
Children are simply presumed by all to need care from mothers to the
exclusion or minimization of fathers.
Father’s role, as vividly illustrated in
advertisements nationally distributed in news magazines and on television, is defined as
that of breadwinner and lifelong provider.
Given these overwhelming premarital and post-marital
pressures to defer to mother’s love and care, and sublimate one’s own, it is
more easily understood why many men so willingly, even actively, not only seek the role of
"primary breadwinner" but also defer (to varying extents) to mother the primary
care and "nurturing" role. While they are at work and planning financial futures
and security for their family, mother becomes for these fathers an "extension of
themselves"13
and their parenting/nurturing function.
I deplore (though I understand) this psychodynamic
phenomenon, and I counsel vigorously against it in my contacts with young couples;
nevertheless, it happens often, to greatly varying extents.
Some working fathers still do lots of primary care
when they are home.14
Many do substantial care, except when others
(e.g., in-laws) are around (to protect mother’s primary parent image). Almost all do
much more of the physical play, roughhousing, etc., with the children, than does mother.
15
Paradoxically, and sadly, the legal system (when
marital separation occurs) routinely deduces from this situation that father cares little
(or at least less) for his children, and they for him, than mother and interprets his
wishes for substantial post-separation time and autonomy with his children
(post-separation) as hypocritical (see Stage 2)
16
After marital difficulties are recognized and
discussions of separation occur, father often hears from mother that
"she’ll" let you see her almost any time you want." Usually, this
statement is accepted, even appreciated, by the father, who does not recognize that
mother has, almost "naturally," assumed custody before even discussing it and
has usurped the power to decide on "letting" (and by implication the power not
to let) father see his children. Also strongly implied is the nature of the contact
between father and child after separation. He will "see" or "visit"
his child—not parent the child.
It is usually
the youngest fathers or those with the youngest children who have acceded to the
stereotypical behavior discussed here.
That (parenting) is a mother’s job, as per a
now recognized agreement by default made after baby’s birth (sometimes before that)
and born of a desire to properly honor and "support" mother’s parenthood,
rather than a desire to avoid work or contact with the baby.
17
It is usually the youngest fathers or those with the
youngest children who have acceded to the stereotypical behavior discussed here. They,
along with their children, stand in the greatest jeopardy.
18
The fathers face the indescribable pain of child loss and parenthood loss. Their children face
the lifelong psychological damage and pain of "parentectomy"
19
Truly, these fathers’ fate as parents often
rests squarely in the hands of their spouses. They are to be parents, or
"visitors," or excluded entirely on the basis of mother’s good will or lack
thereof.
20
STAGE 2: THE PHYSICAL SEPARATION AND EARLY
SEPARATION PERIOD (APPROXIMATELY 4 MONTHS)
Except in
rare cases the father should not have the custody of the minor children of the parties. He
is usually unqualified psychologically and emotionally; nor does he have time and care to
supervise the children. A lawyer not only does an injustice to himself but he is unfair to
his client, the state and to society if he gives any encouragement to the father that he
should have custody of the children.
21
The decision to separate from a spouse is usually
not arrived at lightly or quickly. Postdivorce events are generally perceived as less
painful and fairer when such a decision is "mutual and has been discussed rationally.
Often, however, this does not occur. Most commonly, one parent (almost always the father)
leaves the marital residence, often by "tradition," request, threat of a court
order, or even after legal advice to do so.22
If a spouse (in practical fact, read father) refuses to leave and can’t be ordered out, the
next most likely occurrence is that the "other spouse" leaves the residence with
the children, often without the father’s knowledge or consent.
If anyone
even says "they’re his children, too," it is in the context of a discussion
of his financial support obligations.
Women are the initiating party in 70 to 80 percent
of all divorces filed in this country. This has stimulated many comments and assumptions,
the most common of which is that men are at fault most of the time and that, despite
financial hardships that often befall single mothers, these women are courageous enough
and have suffered enough to go through with it. In this author’s view, a more
rational explanation is that most divorcing persons are decent human beings who share
fault and that men do not initiate proceedings for fear of losing their children. This
pervasive and valid fear of loss of one’s children and parenthood is not experienced
by nor appreciated by mothers facing divorce.
23
Fear of poverty, or at least of a severe diminution
of income, is also present and valid, but it is valid for both parties and their children
after separation Society in general, however, and the media in particular, limit their
perception and their concern to women and "their" families.
One major and widely quoted source,24
with data obtained from a rather narrow (and older) socioeconomic group of families,
purports to show that mothers’ postdivorce income does go down substantially
after separation (it does) while fathers’ standard of living goes way up (it
doesn’t).25
Although this unique comparison of apples versus
oranges has been severely criticized26
it nevertheless has achieved
the status of a battle cry for those interested exclusively in women’s rights.
The rights of a child to his father and those of a
father to his child are ignored or at least subjugated to the perceived right of the other
parent to total custody and control of the child’s life and to the financial
resources (alimony and child support payments, medical expenses, sometimes mortgage
payments) with which to implement and maintain same.
Fathers and their families are not considered to be
relevant now, except as sources of relief and help for women and "their"
families. Fathers’ families are deemed no longer to exist. They (fathers) will be
"visitors" now.
Indeed, if anyone even says "they’re his
children, too," it is in the context of a discussion of his financial support
obligations. His nurturing/parenting abilities (present or potential) and his desires not
to mention the desires and needs of his children for him, are largely ignored.
27
Later, when she gets a chance, mother will assess
those desires and needs, and if she deems them worthy of some consideration, will dispense
time ("visits") accordingly. It will, in effect, be up to her.
28
Many women now inform their spouses (as earlier
discussed) that "you can come over and see her as much as you want. I’ll always
let you do that." Others—assuming no more power, but using it in a more negative
way—will direct that "You can see Mary any time, but the baby is still too young
for you," or that "If you support us, and you start being nice, I’ll let
you see them." Still other mothers deny access completely for any number of bizarre
reasons or for no reason other than vindictiveness.
When father consults a lawyer (which, unfortunately,
is often only after he leaves his home) and relates the aforementioned
conversations, he will often be advised to "be amicable, keep calm, stay away from
the children for a while. She will probably let you see the kids when she calms down.
Remember that she is very upset now."
The fact that children’s psychological needs
for loving contact with both parents should immediately, not three months later,
dictate frequent contact with dad right now
29 regardless of
mother’s anger, state of being upset, or vindictiveness is not often conveyed to the
client. The power to "let" should be immediately exposed as coincident with the
power to prohibit and should not be granted.
Father should be assertively and frequently
parenting the children, as should mother.30
Neither should ever usurp or be granted the power to "let" the other have access to the children.
Neither should ever "visit" the children.
The overriding concern of postdivorce fathers, as
Jacobs emphasizes,31
is their continuing contact with and
relationship with their children (i.e., their integrity as parents).
However, at the early post-separation stage, many
men are lulled by their wives’ or their lawyers’ comments to the effect that
they will "see" their children a lot. It is only later that the brevity,
artificiality, and uncertainty of the "visits" convince them (rightly) that
their very parenthood is in jeopardy and that their children will suffer grievously as a
result.
32
Lulled as they are, many fathers begin discussing
other issues, such as financial child support, occupancy or sale of the family residence,
and division of property and financial assets.
Per their lawyers’ reassuring comments, and due
to the subtle psychosocial factors discussed in Stage 1, men usually do not worry about or
consider "custody" at this stage.
33
He’ll "see" his children a lot (or so
he thinks). He doesn’t want to take the kids away from their mother.
34
Leaving the kids with their mother is the right thing to do.
Full custody, or shared custody, of the children was
probably not even discussed during the first visit with his lawyer (many lawyers do not
bring it up, and assume that their male clients, if they don’t bring it up,
don’t want their kids).
35
If father is feeling great pain and missing his
children to the point of tears, he will usually keep that to himself and consider these
emotions to be inappropriate or a sign of weakness. Babies and toddlers especially
"belong to mothers."
Note that, at all times, talk of custody (or shared
custody) for the father, if it takes place, be couched in terms of "taking the kids
away from their father"—certainly a pejorative and guilt-inducing term
when a father hears it. But taking the kids away from father is never referred to as
"taking the kids away from their mother."
36 ("Leave
your house. Stay away for awhile to let the kids settle into the new situation. Send some
money right away. She’ll probably calm down and let you see them in just a few
weeks.")
According to this logic, fathers don’t
"own" kids. Mothers do. Kids don’t need fathers (much if at all) after
divorce. Kids need mothers.....
If a father is assertive and knowledgeable enough to
ask his attorney about custody or shared custody and his wife is a "normal"
person (with no gross parenting deficit) who wants to "keep" her children, he is
usually assertively advised not to waste his money. He may be (correctly) advised that
good and decent mothers almost never lose full custody and, in most states,
37
do not have to share physical custody if they don’t want to, no matter how good or
loved or nurturing a father has been. Often, the advice continues that "Besides, if
you petition for custody, you will cause her to be upset, and she will probably make it
tough on you to see the kids after you lose. Be cooperative, leave her and the kids in the
house, and I’ll try to get the most liberal visitation for you."
Although more fathers today are being awarded
"joint custody," many of these situations involve joint "legal"
custody.38
This is a nebulous and variably defined term that often
provides fathers with no more parenting time with their children than the more
conventional sole custody agreements (i.e., 36 hours every other weekend for older
children, 8 hours on Sunday for 2 to 5 year olds, and almost nothing for infants).
Even in those unusual instances in which gross
maternal deficits exist (e.g., florid drug or alcohol abuse, serious mental illness,
previously demonstrated child abuse or neglect) and father brings this to his
attorney’s attention, he is often still advised as previously cited, even though his
chances of being permitted to continue in a parental role (i.e., retain
"custody") are now much better.
Damaging and invalid preconceptions, so long
erroneously held (Stage 1), cause and blend nicely and logically with the terrible legal
and psychological positions taken (Stage 2) to produce a father who, though he loves his
children and parents them well, is persuaded and convinced that by leaving his home and
"not taking the kids from their mother" he is taking the right and best course
for his children’s future.
39
If father is
feeling great pain and missing his children to the point of tears he will usually keep
that to himself and consider these emotions to be inappropriate or a sign of weakness.
The fact that she has "taken the kids from
their father" is not presented to him as equally disastrous (as mother deprivation)
for his children, as well as disastrous for himself.
The "gut" feeling that he is losing his
children (and his parenthood) is sublimated and denied—and, if expressed, is
"corrected" by all those around him (often family and friends as well as his
attorney) who have contributed to the disastrous decision he has made.
In fact, his instincts are usually correct. When
visitation begins, parenthood frequently ends.
STAGE 3: POST-SEPARATION: PROGRESSION TO THE
WRITTEN SEPARATION AGREEMENT (4 TO 12 MONTHS)
Courts know
that mother love is a dominant trait in the heart of the mother, even in the weakest of
women. It is of Divine Origin and in nearly all cases, far exceeds and surpasses all
parental affection of the father. Every just man recognizes the fact that minor children
need the constant bestowal of the mother’s care and love.
40
As the recently separated father discovers very
quickly, the prospects for a continued meaningful relationship with his children are grim
indeed. Such a relationship, especially with younger children, will be subject to
mother’s "approval and permission."41
Sadly, few
mothers, dealing with feelings of vulnerability, anger, and guilt, are willing freely to
grant such permission.42
This autonomy (power) over their
children’s contacts with the father, often in tandem with revenge for real or
perceived misdeeds, is one of the few compensating or "positive" emotions they
may be experiencing at this time.
The inappropriateness of permitting this power to
rest in the hands of either of these two ego-smashed and stressed individuals, and
the disaster created by its exercise, seems blissfully beyond the comprehension of the
very professionals and officials whose charge it is to strive for the "best interests
of the child."
43
Thus, while father is also buffeted with feelings of
grief, loss, anger, and failure, he experiences increasing desperation as he now begins to
appreciate the depth of the gulf (physical and psychological) that now exists and is
widening between him and his children.
The ongoing catastrophe that has befallen his
children seems beyond his control or ability to change, reverse, or even mitigate.
Although no one told him this earlier, he now sees (accurately) that his custodial and
parental "bridges" have been burned.
While he cries at night for his children and
parenthood, he finds his productive hours involved with more mundane concerns.
1. He must continue working and his productivity
must continue as before. No one, not relatives, friends, nor even his own lawyer, seems to
have any appreciation of the loss he has suffered and to which he is trying to adjust.
44
In contrast to a death and its attendant grief, there is no funeral, no
finality, no rushing to his side to offer condolences. The normal grief process is denied
him. Not only is there no time off from work, there are usually severe financial burdens
that dictate working overtime
Tears, disorientation, anger, yearning for
one’s children—those emotions are "inappropriate." They are
"normal" perhaps for a mother who is without her children and who,
suffering similarly, would be granted assertive sympathy and emotional support.
The ongoing
catastrophe that has befallen his children seems beyond his control or ability to change,
reverse, or even mitigate.
2. Division of family property is a significant
issue and, despite the distress, is usually decided at this time. Often very bad decisions
as to who gets what are made on the basis of guilt feelings or on the basis that "the
kids need these," always assuming and forcefully bringing home the repugnant concept
that "the children live here, and you are not really connected to them anymore."
The children, it will be said, need "stability," and this will be defined as
"same house and sole custody with the mother".45
This outmoded concept flies in the face of an abundance of studies that indicate that the prime
issue, for postdivorce stability and mental health for children, is continued
close, frequent, and meaningful interaction with both parents.
46
The issue for the children is "Where’s
Daddy?" "Why doesn’t he see us anymore?" "Why can’t we go to
his house?"47
Often, in preverbal children, or in children for
whom these questions are not adequately addressed (or who are afraid to ask them), the
consequences of father loss are demonstrable daily in various forms of regression or
misbehavior.
3. "Visitation"48
arrangements are also being discussed. Most fathers having acquiesced to the legal advice
(previously mentioned) to leave home and "stay away until things settle down,"
are finding that reestablishing a meaningful pattern of contact with their children is
difficult at best49
(i.e., with maternal cooperation) and impossible
at worst (i.e., with denial of access or abridgment/orchestration of time granted).
50
The aforementioned advice was, in fact,
psychologically and legally disastrous for his children as well as for himself, for the
children will never get used to the loss of a parent, especially when the absence of that
parent is perceived or conveyed to the children as volitional.
51
Also, the apparent assertive absence from parenting over the past few months, in addition
to the "abandoning" of the domicile, will be considered solid evidence that
father really doesn’t care that much, and that his subsequent requests for more
substantial "visitation" with his children are not genuine.
52
The amount of "visitation" in the final
separation agreement is almost always totally inadequate: 8 hours per week for children
aged 2 to 5, and a 36 to 48-hour "weekend" every 14 days for older children
(visits with toddlers are incredibly brief, and with infants time is usually not granted
at all). And all this assumes that the visits are permitted. Worse yet, many agreements
(perhaps half) merely arrange for visitation as "mutually agreed upon by the
parties," which means, in effect, that mother has total veto power over all proposed
father-child contact.
53
4. From the time of his absence from the home, he
must provide child support for his children, defined always as financial support.
The father’s needs and abilities and the children’s intense needs and
desires for his emotional and psychological "child support" are ignored or
denied when "child support" is discussed.
54
Many poor and marginal income fathers find that a
small studio apartment, single room, or residence with their parents is all they can
afford. From this financial fact of life will frequently arise claims that overnight
"visitation" with the father is inappropriate or harmful because of his
inadequate sleeping arrangements for his children, especially if they are "too
young."
55
(Too young for a father to be deemed capable is usually under 5.)
5. He must pay substantial legal fees for himself
and at the end of negotiations usually finds that he is adjudged responsible for payment
of 50 percent or more of his wife’s attorney’s fees. This may be ordered even
despite an agreement in which the spouses divide financial and material assets equally.
Father’s greater income is usually used to rationalize these decisions, but
father’s substantial start-up costs in ‘setting up his new domicile, and
father’s tax and (after-tax) support obligations are usually ignored in this
determination. In truth, the concept of the dependent, helpless female, victimized by the
all-powerful male, is the overriding force behind most of these counsel fee
determinations.
Now, with separation agreement in hand, with bills
perhaps paid, and with visitation apparently "settled," many fathers, although
still grieving, will attempt to reconstruct their lives, pick up the flotsam and jetsam
remaining from their former relationship to their children, and try, bravely, to "get
it back together" with them.
56
Wallerstein and Kelly,57 and
others, however, demonstrate assertively that large numbers of post separation children
are denied their decreed (and deserved) access to their fathers on many occasions, often
with cold and calculating regularity. The reasons are often frivolous and ridiculous and
are usually misstated. The motives are more often those of power and revenge.
Truly, the question "Why are absent fathers
absent?" is better replaced by the question "How do so many persist, and hold
on, despite societal, judicial, and custodial parent pressure to give up and
disappear?" In fact, a large number—perhaps 60 percent—of fathers who are
(functionally or in fact) eliminated or "absent’ after separation have
"disappeared" by now. The courageous and committed (and/or lucky) others who
have remained committed, loved, and loving, sometimes, despite incredible odds, may still
have a heady battle ahead.
STAGE 4: TO THE DIVORCE AND BEYOND
You have
never seen a bigger pain in the rear end than the father who wants to get involved; he can
be repulsive. He wants to meet the kid after school at three o’clock, take the kid
out to dinner during the week, have the kid on his own birthday, talk to the kid on the
phone every evening, go to every open school night, take the kid away for a whole weekend
so they can be alone together. This type of involved father is pathological.
58
Many remaining fathers experience continued direct
and assertive attempts by vindictive custodial mothers to deprive their children of
quantitatively or qualitatively meaningful contact with them, even after the emotionally
wrenching first year. Still other fathers, initially well or at least reasonably
"treated," now encounter new and unexpected (often subtle) obstructions to their
efforts to remain viable and credible as parents.
The children "still love" their father or
love him "too much" or ask for dad "too often." Mother’s reaction
is understandable but tragic and wrong: restrict, orchestrate, or deny decreed parenting
time between children and father.
After all, the father is not performing as expected.
He is supposed to "visit," not parent. She is the parent. Her lawyer, friends,
counselors, and even the judge who oversaw the separation have all defined noncustodial
parenting to her as "he should pay ‘child support’ regularly, be on time
for visitation (when you ‘permit’ it), and back up mother in the way she brings
up the children.
Indeed, an attitude of autonomy and self-assurance
as a parent, along with a continued intense love for his children, are the characteristics
that most threaten the concept of one-parent "custody and control" of children
that the American way of divorce has imposed on our society and which Judge Huttner, in
his ignorance, so eloquently expressed.
"Visitors" are not expected to have input
in children’s upbringing. "Visitors" should respect a
"parent’s" wishes as to activity during the visit.
59
Above all, visitors should not seek or accept affection from the child to the extent that
it might parallel that shown between mother and child
Loving and persistent fathers find this attitude
incredible and outrageous and often refuse to act as "visitors." When their time
with their children is denied, those who can afford it (few can) and whose lawyer is
supportive (few are) petition the court to reassert their "visitation" rights.
Those who can’t afford it and those whose own lawyer denigrates them with statements
like "but that doesn’t really hurt your kids; it just hurts you"
60
often believe this nonsense and just give up and drop out altogether.
The minority of fathers who make it to court
frequently hear, after demonstrating (proof and witnesses are often needed) the denial of
access, a mild lecture to the effect that "both of you are hurting your children by
fighting like this." The judge will finish the lecture by admonishing both parents
that the judge hopes he doesn’t have to see them again in court. It is rare that a
specific order will be issued to make up the time lost, even if it was extensive or even
if a given father has not seen his children for weeks or months. Worse, a father can only
hope that the decreed future time will be granted without obstruction. The publications of
fathers’ support groups are replete with reports of fathers who have returned to
court on many occasions, at $500 or more per return, and still failed to obtain an
enforceable order for continued unobstructed access to their children.
61
In addition
to assertive denial of access children often suffer "subtle" denial of the
opportunity to see and love their fathers.
When these heartbroken fathers drop out, as many do,
their children are told, almost invariably, that he is a non-caring, selfish, immature
lout who "doesn’t give a darn for us."
In addition to assertive denial of access, children
often suffer "subtle" denial of the opportunity to see and love their fathers.
Denial by arrangement of conflicting activities is common. "She’s going to her
friend’s birthday party" or "He has to go to the dentist this
afternoon" are common ploys. It now becomes apparent that the term visitation is
more than repugnant to any loving parent. It is a term that removes from the father the
privilege of saying, "Fine, I’ll take her there and bring her home (to my home)
when it is over."
Obstructions to meaningful parenting are not limited
to those contrived by vindictive mothers (and acquiesced to by judges and others) and are
not always perpetrated consciously or with malignant or parent destroying intent. The term
visitation simply removes all thoughts of parenting or parenthood for the parent to
whom it is applied, and society and societal convention will react and proceed
accordingly.
The author, whose children were surreptitiously
removed from their home while he was in the office, was informed later (by the
superintendent of the school to which his children were taken and enrolled) that he would
not receive a duplicate report card (or any other information whatsoever) from the school
because, by regulation, that information was given only to "parents."
This case was successfully litigated at the U.S.
federal district court level after long and unsuccessful litigation before the New York
state commissioner of education, and then in the New York Supreme Court.
62
Physicians, like educators, judges, and lawyers, are
not above ignorance and insensitivity when it comes to child/father relations. Many
fathers regularly receive bills for medical service to their children and yet had no idea
that their children were ill or seen. Calls for information about the child are frequently
answered with a curt "please ask your ex-wife" response. When mother has
"ordered" that father is to receive no information, physicians frequently comply
automatically. That is, after all, the parent talking.
Obviously, emotional and financial resources
necessary to resist and neutralize society’s assumptions and attacks on postdivorce
parenting as it relates to fathers are substantial and possessed by few fathers.
63
As previously stated, the wonder is that so many men remain.
With time, still new hurdles are encountered. Often,
children are moved thousands of miles from father, rendering meaningless and unenforceable
any "visitation rights" decreed in the agreement. Efforts to prevent the move
usually fail (the paternal efforts rather than the impending move in itself are recognized
by the court as disruptive to the "stability" of the "family").
Efforts merely to modify the "visitation" provisions (e.g., to provide 30 days
in the summer, and perhaps 7 days during Christmas and Easter holidays) often fail.
The entrance into their children’s lives of new
husbands or boyfriends often complicates or further obstructs the father/child bond.
Frequently, these men are disenfranchised from their own children, for many of the same
reasons enumerated herein. Yet, many believe fully the story often related that their new
wife’s ex-husband is a rotten, non-caring father who fights to "see" his
children just to harass them and their mother. If he really cared, he’d let them get
on with "their new lives" and wouldn’t be giving them such a hard time.
Mother did all the caring and upbringing during the marriage. Why is he acting like
"father of the year" now?
64
Often, these new "daddies" or
"stepfathers" try to be loving and parental, but few even in this group are
cognizant that children can learn easily to love them but still can and should maintain a
loving bond with their fathers. Lamb
65 and others have demonstrated
that children (even newborns) can bond to and love many more than one or two parents or
parent figures.
Tragically, many children meet several "new
daddies" over 5 (or 15) years, some or all of whom develop warm relationships with
them, only to "lose" them as they and mother part company. Obviously, and
especially in these situations, the importance of a stable, meaningful, loving,
unbreakable, unabridgeable parental relationship for them with their father cannot be
overemphasized.
STAGE 5: UNMARRIED FATHERS: A UNIQUE AND SPECIAL
TRAGEDY
If the
road to single fatherhood is rocky, the road to unwed fatherhood is all but
impassable....The more than two million unwed teenaged fathers in this country have very
little chance of playing an active role in their children’s lives. Women become
mothers in the hospital, but men don’t become fathers.... We have created a system in
which we make sure that fathers don’t get involved with their kids.66
The young man whose girlfriend (or casual partner)
bears their child faces complex and usually insurmountable problems as (and if) he
struggles to assert and establish his parenthood.
For him, there exists more than mere malignant
sexist assumptions that (divorced) mothers care more for or are more appropriate parents
for their children. There is an assertive belief that this young man doesn’t care at
all or at least shouldn’t. Correspondingly, mother should not be "interfered
with" as she struggles to bring up "her" child.
If it is ever granted that this is his child as
well, it is in the context of a "child support" obligation, such
"support" being defined as exclusively financial.
67
If the young man rightly defines his obligations
toward his child as encompassing emotional, nurturing, and physical care, as well as
financial support, and whether or not he is able to provide financial support, he is
rebuffed by lawyers and judges as well as the young mother and her family, who will regard
his request for unsupervised parenting time with his daughter as arrogant and as
"dangerous" to the baby, who needs "stability" and needs "her
mother." His own family may be pressuring him to "drop out."
Such assumptions regarding stability, maternal
primacy, and fathers not caring are erroneous.
69 Stability can be
found in a loving parent-infant dyad in either parent’s home (or in another home) and
can be much more appropriately defined for an infant as a constancy of loving care rather
than a constancy of one human rendering it at one location.
69
It is well established that (1) infants can and do
establish loving bonds with persons other than their mother
70 (2)
frequently in intact married couple homes, infants are more strongly bonded, or as
strongly bonded, to their fathers
71 and (3) significant bonds with
fathers often enrich and improve maternal-infant bonds.
72
Should an unwed father ask for custody or joint
custody of his baby, he is almost always kept out, or laughed out, of court. If he gets
there, his "fitness" as a person and a parent will be intensely evaluated, and
any negative factors in his past or present life (i.e., drug or alcohol use, previous
unwed fatherhood, school problems, or unemployment) might well be used against him.
Mother’s fitness as a parent, either at or after delivery, is almost never evaluated
or even considered worthy of discussion.
73
Should an
unwed father ask for custody or joint custody of his baby, he is almost always kept out,
or laughed out, of court.
Mothers are automatically accepted as capable,
knowledgeable, and nurturing as parents, or at least potentially so. If parenting deficits
(e.g., psychiatric, drug, or alcohol problems) are obvious, she will be deemed to be in
need of massive social, economic and psychiatric support. A father with similar deficits
is deemed unworthy of any father-child contact whatsoever. Even visitation will be denied.
Despite overwhelming popular opinion to the contrary
and overwhelming odds against meaningful involvement with their children, unwed fathers do
care and worry about their children.
74 If many seem to have
"abandoned" them, it is almost always because they were "aborted" as
fathers totally extruded from meaningful parental contact with and knowledge of the child.
Legal, social, and financial pressures to drop out are usually overwhelming and
unrelenting.
Unwed fathers who continue a relationship with the
mother (and tenuous ones with the children) quickly find that they, also, have no
definable or meaningful legal rights to their children when the relationship with the
mother is over.
75
Most young men in this situation are financially
insolvent, often in school or unemployed. As such, most are unable to financially support
their children. Since many states require repayment of welfare benefits, and all require
payment (and retroactive payment) of child support, a "wall of debt"
76
essentially separates them from any parental standing with their
children, if such standing had not already been lost on a social or access-denial
basis.
Again, the poignant question is not "Why do
unwed dads disappear?" Rather, it is "How do the courageous and fortunate few
who remain involved in their parental roles do it?"
EPILOGUE
It is, I
believe, an instinctual part of parenthood for fathers (and mothers) to want to provide
for their children’s well-being. If current statistics about the lack of child
support are true—something that is itself subject to further examination—then
there would seem to be something drastically wrong with the present legal system that
would so universally frustrate that natural instinct to provide.... It is amazing that no
one wonders in part why an otherwise law-abiding, responsible citizen is suddenly turned
into a deadbeat scofflaw after divorce.
77
Literally millions of divorced or unwed fathers who
have lost contact with or never had contact with their children live and work in our
country today. Most hold responsible and respectable positions in society and have
"new" families. Many live in fear of losing their "new" children. We
meet them every day in our private and professional lives, although we don’t
recognize them. In their overwhelming majority, they are not irresponsible, non-caring
rats.
Some of these fathers support78
their lost children financially, even though they are denied any opportunity to offer
physical, emotional, or psychological support—all of which are more crucial to their
children and the children’s emotional and spiritual welfare.
Some fathers do not support their children
financially. Many of these men (in the past) were never asked to or forced to. Some did
not know that they had fathered a child. A few remained indigent. Others, destroyed or
aborted as fathers, have made a conscious decision that biological fatherhood alone (like
biological motherhood alone), coupled with a present or future ability to pay something,
is not a fair criterion or standard by which financial obligations to a lost child should
be incurred.
These fathers have met countless women (of all ages)
who have made the heartbreaking decision to have their children adopted by loving couples.
The fathers perceive the compassionate treatment accorded these women (vis-à-vis the
fathers’ "treatment as destroyed fathers") as unfair and representative of
a double standard insofar as society’s view of fathers is concerned.
Indeed, the unfortunate and hurting mothers do have
their emotional needs recognized and addressed by individuals and society (men do not),
and no person or municipal agency ever asks or expects them (regardless of their financial
ability) to "support" these children whom they have "given up" or
"walked away from."
Truly, our legal socio-cultural approach to fathers
in general, and to divorced/unmarried fathers is, as illustrated herein, nothing less than
a progressive series of well-meaning assumptions, beliefs, and then fiats, which lead to,
indeed encourage, the physical and psychological disenfranchisement and destruction of
fathers as parents.
79
In the case specifically of unmarried fathers, or
fathers separating during a pregnancy, the term extrusion80
or even abortion
is more accurate These men are simply prevented from being fathers.
Why, indeed, are absent fathers "absent"?
Why are deadbeat fathers "dead"? And how can pediatricians protect the children
they serve and care for from experiencing this psychological catastrophe?
In my view, we should, first and emphatically,
acknowledge to ourselves and others who listen to us that which Lamb,
81
Jacobs,82
Huntington,83 and others
84 have demonstrated:
Many more "absent" fathers are victims
rather than culprits.
This issue (fatherless children) is a multifaceted
and tragic one and for too long has been falsely framed. Adjectives like killed or
destroyed portray these fathers much more accurately than ones like deadbeat or absent.
85
Having accepted this as a basic premise (widely
divergent from present popular belief), it follows that our very approach as a society to
the "absent father" problem is flawed.
"Dad" is not the problem. Neither, for
that matter, is the vindictive mother who denies or manipulates "visitation" and
thereby destroys or prevents any father-child bonding. Neither, indeed, is the judge who
denies any "visitation" to a young unwed father, or who grants ridiculously
inadequate "visitation" to a divorced father and then ignores or tacitly
approves of the subsequent denial of same by mother.
The "problem" precedes visitation and its
denial, although both the granting and the denial of "visitation" exacerbate it
greatly.
The "problem," to the extent that this
complex issue can be explained briefly, is with our concept of the merits of one-parent
"custody"
86 or "ownership" of children when
parents separate or were never married.
The word custody is derived from the Latin
word custas, which means guard or keeper. It is defined (remarkably similarly in
three Webster’s dictionaries spanning 80 years of publication)
87 as
a "guarding" or "keeping safe" or as protection, guardianship, or
care, or keeping or guarding, as it relates to someone under arrest. The concept of
guarding is clearly more operative than that of "care."
The granting
of "visitation" itself serves often to demean and diminish a parent rather than
sustain him.
That concept—guarding—is, from this
author’s perspective both as a pediatrician and a parent, repugnant as it relates to
any kind of child care. It is, however, a very accurate description of the position in
which postdivorce parents are placed when one parent is granted or "awarded"
custody, to the exclusion of the other parent. To the custodial parent is granted the
power, indeed the duty, to "guard" and "keep safe" the children of
these two parents. All too often, the charge given seems to be to keep the children
"safe from" the other parent and his influence.
This clear assertion of power and superiority in
parental position and practice, relative to the "other" parent, is not lost on
either parent.88
It is a minority of custodial parents who refrain
from exerting this newly granted power in a vindictive and negative way, and a minority of
noncustodial parents who can function parentally on a part-time and demeaning basis when
such power is exerted.89
They will now be "permitted"
(maybe) to "visit" their baby, and they will have no autonomy in her upbringing.
Indeed, the granting of "visitation"
itself serves often to demean and diminish a parent rather than sustain him.
90
Again, an examination of the word itself and the concept is in order. A "visit,"
or "visitation," is defined "to go or come to see someone out of friendship
or for social reasons," to "stay with as a guest for a time," and "the
act of calling upon another, a short stay."
91 The most
heartbreaking definition of all was in the oldest dictionary I consulted: "to call
upon," or to "keep up the interchange of civilities and salutations.
91
This concept (as does custody) absolutely
assaults the sensitivities of the most non-parental individual insofar as it is applied to
the parent-child relationship. And yet, this concept is followed to the letter, especially
with younger children, if and when "visitation" is even allowed.
The preceding discussion has not been an exercise in
semantics. When custody is "awarded," rather than mutual
responsibility assigned, then disenfranchisement has already occurred (unless
the custodial parent wishes otherwise and acts accordingly) and disappearance, in due
time, is likely.
Similarly, when a parent is granted
"visitation," and the custodial parent and the judge treat it as such, rather
than as parenting time, disenfranchisement has occurred, and disappearance is
likely. With constant denial of same, disappearance is almost inevitable.
The only exception to this occurs when (1) the
custodial parent desires and nurtures the other parent’s parental relationship, (2)
the children are old enough and assertive enough to insist on unhindered access to their
father, or (3) their father (or mother) is persistent enough, rich enough, and fortunate
enough to have a judge for whom biparental contact is important and to acquire and enforce
meaningful access to his child. The third item is particularly difficult to achieve, even
with the most indomitable spirit of love and motivation.
93
Lest this "complete and unabridged"
version of the facts concerning the fate of divorced and unwed fathers divert the reader
from the main focus of this presentation, it is here reemphasized that postdivorce
parental destruction (of either parent) is an unmitigated disaster for children,
much more so than is divorce per se or any economic disadvantages secondary thereto.
Parental "absence" (especially absence
perceived as volitional or due to parental non-concern) certainly ranks with, and is
often a precursor of, delinquency, school failure, drug abuse, and teen pregnancy as
one of our nation’s most serious "problems of youth."
As such, it should command the intense attention of
physicians, particularly we pediatricians whose prime concern and life work is the health
and welfare of our nation’s youth.
Often we underestimate our value to our patients as
counselors and listeners—as family therapists. In point of fact, we are usually the
first and often the only source of parenting advice and family counseling that our
patients and their parents ever get.94
For the majority of our
patients who never acquire a serious disease, our counsel and observations, over time, can
be our greatest contribution and that for which our services will be most fondly and
gratefully remembered.
In the sensitive area of postdivorce parenting
relationships, we can be of immense value to our patients by the care and concern,
discreet observations, inquiry, and counsel that we offered on an ongoing basis before the
marital problems occurred and that we can, it is hoped, reoffer and build on in this time
of crisis.
Be alert for
demeaning of "deparenting" comments—often well intentioned, but damaging
nevertheless—that he "baby-sits" them "while I work."
We can start at the prenatal interview or in the
newborn nursery. Inquiry as to parenting plans and philosophy (if such has been formed)
and willingness to answer questions and offer comments about them will be appreciated and
often carry great weight. It is here that an assessment of both parents’ views
and attitudes toward father importance and participation can be ascertained.
Although one cannot change lives and philosophies,
it is very possible, by offering emotional support and knowledgeable advice, to nurture a
shaky and seminal idea, promise continued availability for discussion of it, and thereby
provide the psychological underpinnings for that person to commit to an activity that many
relatives and peers believe is inappropriate or suboptimal for that person. This is
particularly applicable to the young man who has not yet fully come to terms with his
fatherhood and is not sure what is "normal" for him to do or to want to do with
his baby. As discussed in Stage 1, he may be dying to touch and hold his infant and yet be
too embarrassed and too deferent to mother’s perceived needs to ask her to put the
baby in his arms.
The same principles apply when meeting a family, or
just a parent-infant pair, later in the office. During the initial history, we can, by
perceptive observation and discreet inquiry, ascertain the domestic arrangements operative
in this child’s home, e.g., who does how much child care, who works outside the home,
and for how many hours. We can observe and record parental attitudes and bonding (strong
or not), and comment and counsel accordingly. These assessments, and the opportunity they
provide you as a concerned and knowledgeable professional vis-à-vis baby’s physical
and emotional development are invaluable, especially if this family is later in trouble.
They are also valuable in the short term, and
permit (indeed encourage) open discussion and inquiry by parents as to the value of
"co-parenting," especially the value of "fathering" above and beyond
the production of financial support.
Be alert for demeaning or "deparenting"
comments—often well intentioned, but damaging nevertheless—that he
"baby-sits" them "while I work." Also, listen for comments from mother
or father to the effect that "Oh, he plays with the baby once in a while, but he
doesn’t feed or change her. He’s afraid he might hurt her. Besides, that’s
my job."
I always ask to meet father at the next visit, if he
is not now present, and I try physically to show him and emotionally to prime him to the
fact that infants are emotionally needy, loving little human beings who do not thrive only
from love and nurturance rendered by mothers and other females and whose care and nurture
are not difficult to master, whether one is male or female. Often, it takes only a modicum
of instruction and encouragement by a respected "elder" to instill confidence
and enthusiasm in these hesitant and uninformed young men.
If one practices feeling, caring pediatrics, one
will be consulted when divorce occurs (or at least the subject will be brought up during a
patient visit).
If you know that both parents have been contributing
and caring, you will be able to listen more objectively and to counsel that immediate and
continued post divorce access to both parents, substantial in its quantity and quality, is
an essential component of "treatment" of the children involved.
95
Emotional distress, distortion, and hyperbole are the rule rather than the exception in
the immediate post separation period,
96 and one can expect frequent
use of these during arguments that may be used in favor of denying access of children to
the other loved parent.
If and when post divorce residential arrangements
are being discussed, it is essential, in my view, to discuss these in terms of shared and
alternating "parenting time" with the children. As previously discussed, nothing
destroys parental feelings and confidence as quickly and ruthlessly as the term, and
practice of, "visitation."97
In response to questions about the children’s
living arrangements, I believe it is far better, right from the start, to foster the
concept that children will continue to "live" with both parents, in two
homes, at varying times98.
I urge this even if and when geographic
separation of the parents is planned. I particularly emphasize and urge that the parent
who might have more physical time, after agreements, than the other parent not assume a
vindictive or superior parent role vis-à-vis the other parent.
99
In response to the use of the word custody in
any context, I urge all parties to substitute, in their decree/agreement, the term responsibility,
and of course, to agree to "joint" responsibility, with alternating
substantial "parenting time" and no visitation for anybody!
100
One who is privileged with responsibility is
responsible; one who may only visit, for short times, with permission, frequently
won’t be.
As for any collective efforts to better the lot of
children of divorced or divorcing parents, we should make a greater effort to reach
matrimonial lawyers and family court judges whose counsel (toward deparenting separation
agreements) and whose orders (in court) alter forever (and usually negatively) the bonding
and connections between a parent and child.
101 We should be in the
fore-front of those now attempting to "humanize" the divorce process and protect
children from the clear and present danger of "parentectomy."
102
It is usually we among child health professionals who are first contacted and consulted
during family crises,103
either directly or indirectly, when
physical or divorce-related symptoms occur in one of our patients. Most parents cannot
afford to consult mental health professionals, especially after paying legal fees.
Sadly, many mental health professionals, as well as
legal professionals, continue to cling to outmoded concepts of maternal superiority, or
"primary care" superiority, despite assertive evidence that infants are usually
well bonded to both parents, regardless of who between them feeds and changes baby
most.104
Sadly, many
mental health professionals, as well as legal professionals, continue to cling to outmoded
concepts of maternal superiority.
In the view of many experts105
and of the author,106
joint physical and legal custody, whether or
not the parents are communicating well is the goal for which we should strive. This is a child
advocacy position, based on the strong impression that parent child bonds, with both
parents, should survive parental divorce and that non-custody and
"visitation" are tantamount, in most cases, to deparentization of the parent and
psychological disaster for the child.
There are opponents to this view,107
and the prime arguments they present are that joint parenting and responsibility produce
confusion and lack of stability for children, especially younger ones, and that it is
impossible or detrimental (to the child) to implement when parents are "not
cooperating" or hostile.
Although some confusion sometimes occurs, the
benefits of a continued, meaningful, loving parental relationship with both parents
far outweigh the annoyance and inconvenience.
108
The constant moving can be annoying,
especially with older children, who need two hair dryers in two different bathrooms, must
place photographs of rock stars or boyfriends in two different bedrooms, and must explain
to their peers why they take different school buses on different days.
The
overriding criterion of "success" in custody studies seems to be that of
continuing involvement with the child by both parents.
It seems abundantly clear that confusion and
critical lack of stability is precisely what occurs when one parent suddenly
disappears from a child’s life—often without adequate or accurate explanation
during the months between physical separation of parents and separation agreement (or for
that matter, when a parent disappears "forever").
Regarding joint custody and its feasibility when the
parents are adversarial,109
it seems rarely to be pointed out that sole
custody does not work either when parents constantly fight.
One need only review the sobering statistics
presented earlier in this review—huge numbers of "parentectomized"
children, never even seeing one of their parents, and (less critical, to be sure, but
still of great significance) many children who are not receiving adequate financial
support from those destroyed parents—to conclude assertively that sole custody is an
abysmal failure when parents fight.
Joint custody, implemented and enforced, works or at
least works much better than sole custody when parental hostility is present and when it
is not. As such, it deserves strong consideration as the "least detrimental
alternative"110
for all children facing divorce, whether both
parents ask for it or have been made aware of it as an option.
Children with a noncustodial parent usually lose
that parent, joint custodial parents are both there and loved. Children with a
noncustodial parent are often financially unsupported, whereas in their overwhelming
majority, children with two functioning parents and no visitors are well supported.
111
Many fathers who are truly jointly responsible and loved, maintain
financially both of their children’s homes.
The overriding criterion of "success" in
custody studies seems to be that of continuing involvement with the child by both parents,
112
the exact result that seems most obstructed and frustrated by our
American way of divorce113 a
nd the judges and lawyers who sustain it
and encourage its perpetuation.
A parent is a terrible thing to waste. Yet waste
them we do, whenever we assign parental responsibilities to them as we simultaneously
remove the blessings, fruits, and rights that should be concomitant therewith.
Pediatricians must view "absent" fathers
from a clearer and more compassionate perspective, so that we may contribute significantly
to substantially lessening their number. In doing so, we might contribute more towards
improving the quality of life of our patients than through any other socially oriented
endeavor.
____________________________________________________________________________
1 Excerpts from a dissenting opinion of Robert Bork in Franz v.
United States, which involved a child who was secretly relocated, with her custodial
mother, to a new home. Mother’s new husband, was a protected witness in a major
criminal investigation, and father was unable to see or even know the whereabouts of the
child.
2 A. Levy, Father Custody, in Emergency Issues in Child
Psychiatry (Schetky & Benedek eds., 1985); J.W. Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody
Resolution: Conflicting Legal and Psychological Paradigms, 143 Am. J. Psychiatry
192-97 (1986); H. Fitzgerald & C. McCread, Fathers and Infants, Infant Mental
Health J. vol 2, no. 4 (1981)
3 M. Diehl, A Texas Father Speaks Out For Equal Rights: A Survey
of Discrimination, in Texas State Bar Section Report, Family Law Section, vol. 82
(1982)
4 Levy, supra note 2; Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody
Resolution, supra note 2; M. Lamb, The Role of the Father in Child Development
(1981); Fitzgerald & McCread, supra note 2; L. Gunsberg, Selected Critical
Review of Psychological Investigations of the Early Father-Infant Relationship, in
Father and Child (S. Cath et al., eds., 1982); J. Ross, In Search of Fathering, in
Father and Child (S. Cath et al. eds., 1982).
5 J. Wallerstein & J. Kelly, Effects of Divorce on the
Visiting Father-Child Relationship, 137 Am J. Psychiatry 1534-39 (1980); J. W. Jacobs,
The Effect of Divorce on Fathers: An Overview of the Literature, 129 Am. J.
Psychiatry 1235-41 (1982); J. W. Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers: Social and
Psychotheraputic Considerations, 140 Am. J. Psychiatry 1294-99 (1983).
6 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra note
5; J. Wallerstein & J. Kelly, Surviving the Breakup (1980); J. Herzog, On Father
Hunger: The Father’s Role in the Modulation of Aggressive Drive and Fantasy, in
Father and Child (S. Cath et al. eds., 1982).
7 Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody Resolution, supra note 2.
8 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra
note 5; Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra note 5.
9 Margaret Mead, as quoted by Fitzgerald & McCread, supra note
2, at 214.
10 Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5.
11 E. Teyber & C. Hoffman, Missing Fathers, Psychology.
Today, April 1987, at 36-39; Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note
5.
12 Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5. 131d
13Id
14 Lamb, supra note 4.
15 Levy, supra note 2; Lamb, supra note 4;
Herzog, supra note 6.
16 Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5; Jacobs,
Divorce and Child Custody Resolution, supra note 2.
17 Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5.
18 Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra note 5.
19 F. Williams, What Judges and Mediators Can Do to Ameliorate
the Effect of Divorce on Parents and Children, 6 State Bar of Cal. Fam. L News 1-9
(1983).
20 Teyber & Hoffman, supra note 11.
21 Levy, supra note 2, excerpting from a guidebook on family
law published by the Family Law Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association in 1971.
22 L. Kiefer, How to Win Custody (1982).
23 Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra note 5;
Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5.
24 L Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution (1987).
25 This source ignores new home start-up costs, substantial
attorney’s fees (often including a large percentage of wife’s attorney’s
fees), and child care expenses (well in addition to "child support" paid to the
wife), among other expenses. Also, it ignores as a "standard of living" for
parents the presence in one’s home of one’s children. There is a
"standard of loving" to be factored into a "standard of
living."
26 E. Rix, Women’s Research & Education Institute of the
Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, The American Woman, 1987/88 (a
review of Weitzman’s The Divorce resolution).
27 Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5; D.
Huntington, Fathers: The Forgotten Figures in Divorce, in Divorce and Fatherhood:
The Struggle for Parental Identity (J. Jacobs ed., American Psychiatric Press, Inc.).
28 Teyber & Hoffman, supra note 11
29 R.E Fay, Joint Custody for Infants and Toddlers, 19 Med.
Aspects Hum. Sexuality 134-39 (1985); Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce,
supra note 5; Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra note 5; Jacobs, Treatment
of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5.
30 Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5;
Wallerstein & Kelly, Surviving, supra note 6.
31 Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra
note 5.
32 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra note 5.
33 Levy, supra note 2.
34 Teyber & Hoffman, supra note 11.
35Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody Resolution, supra
note 2; L Kiefer, supra note 22.
36 Teyber & Hoffman, supra note 11; L Kiefer, supra
note 22.
37 As of this writing. some form of joint custody statute exist in
approximately 30 states in this country. These statutes vary tremendously in strength of
language (preference, presumption, options, etc.) and in definition. In general the
majority of joint custody agreements (perhaps 70 percent) provide, still, for joint
"legal" custody, with much more physical time with one parent (usually the
mother).
38 Bruce v. Bruce, 14 Okla. 140, 165, 285 (1930).
39 Levy, supra note 2; Teyber l& Hoffman, supra
note 11; L. Kiefer, supra note 22.
40 Bruce v. Bruce, 14 Okla. 140, 165, 285 (1930).
41 Teyber & Hoffman, supra note 11.
42 Levy, supra note 2; Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of
Divorce, supra note 5: Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra
note 5; Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody Resolution, supra note 2.
43 J. Goldstein et al., Beyond the Best Interests of the Child
(1973).
44 D. Meredith, Mom, Dad, and the Kids, Psychol.
Today, June 1985, at 62-67.
45 Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, Wives and Grandparents Coalition,
The legal status of the Non-Custodial Parent in Family Matters (Houston).
46 Teyber & Hoffman, supra note 11; Wallerstein &
Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra note 5; Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on
Fathers, supra note 5; Gunsberg, supra note 4; Williams, supra
note 19; Fay, supra note 29; Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, supra note 45;
Ross, supra note 4; Wallerstein & Kelly, Surviving, supra note 6;
Herzog, supra note 6; Rix, supra note 26; Huntington, supra note 27;
M. Roman, joint Custody for Fathers— An Update, in Divorce and Fatherhood: The
Struggle for Parental Identity (l. Jacobs ed., American Psychiatric Press, Inc.); P.
Stahl, Bureau of National Affairs & Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, A
Review of Joint ant Shared Parenting Literature, in Joint Custody and Shared Parenting (J.
Folberg ed., 1984); J. Greif, Fathers, Children, and Joint Custody, 49 Am. J.
Orthopsychiatry 313, 318 (1979).
47 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra
note 5.
48 "Visitation," even if "permitted," is not
usually frequent and does not in any case constitute parenting or meaningful interaction.
49 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra
note 5.
50 Id.; Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra
note 5; Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5; Jacobs, Divorce
and Child Custody Resolution, supra note 2.
51 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra
note 5; Fay, supra note 29.
52 Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note
5.
53 Diehl, supra note 3
54 Kiefer, supra note 22.
55 Id.; Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, supra note 45.
56 Some couples part amicably, and some mothers are cognizant of the
father’s equally critical role in their children’s lives and act accordingly,
encouraging rather than discouraging father’s meaningful participation in postdivorce
parenting, This enlightened attitude may change, however, with time see Stage 4).
57 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra
note 5; Wallerstein & Kelly, Surviving, supra note 6; The Father’s Forum
(Santa Ana, Cal.).
58 Verbatim statements from Judge Richard Huttner, former chief
judge of the Kings County (Brooklyn) Family Court, and a prominent member of the New York
State Commission on Child Support (quotation marks added), In The Fathers Also Rise,
New York Magazine, Nov. 18, l985, at 50-75.
59 This reference is missing.
60 The author, a pediatrician and joint custodial parent, was told
exactly that by an attorney appointed "for the children" (guardian) during a
contempt proceeding brought against his ex-wife.
61 The Father’s Forum (Santa Ana, Gl.).
62 Fay v. S. Colonie Bd. of Educ., 20 U.S.C. § 1232g tA) (1982).
For the seven years during which this litigation proceeded, I was never sent one
announcement by this school district. Despite 50 percent joint custody of my children, I
have never received an announcement of or a packet of photos of school pictures taken of
my children.
63 Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody Resolution, supra note
2; F. Williams, A Father’s Post Divorce Struggle for Parental Identity, in
Divorce and Fatherhood: The Struggle for Parental Identity (Gq Jacobs ed.1; Huntington, supra
note 27.
64 Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5.Cdl
65 Lamb, supra note 4; Gunsberg, supra note 4; Ross, supra
note 4.
66 Bork quotes were taken from an insert article adjacent to D.
Meredith, Unwed Fathers: A Special Case, Psychology Today, June 1985, at 62-67. The
bottom quote was from Amy Williams of San Francisco’s Teenage Pregnancy and Parenting
Project (TAPP). The top quote was not specifically authored.
67 Meredith, supra note 66.
68 Levy, supra note 2; Lamb, supra note 4; Fitzgerald
& McCread, supra note 2; Gunsberg, supra note 4: Meredith, supra
note 66; Huntington, supra note 27.
69 Lamb, supra note 4; Stahl, supra note 46.
70 Lamb, supra note 4; Gunsberg, supra note 4.
71 Lamb, supra note 4; Gunsberg, supra note 4; Herzog,
Supra note 6.
72 Lamb, supra note 4; Herzog, supra note 6.
73 Meredith, supra note 66.
74 This reference is missing.
75 Id
76 Id
77 From an article by John D. Lauer in Network (vol 2. no.
1), a journal of the National Congress for Men. The address of the Congress is 223 1 5th
St. E Washington, DC 20003
78 The most commonly published and quoted figure for "child
support" compliance is that approximately 50 percent of "noncustodial
parents" pay their support obligation in full, 25 percent pay only part of it and 25
percent pay nothing. A study of noncustodial mothers in Austin, Texas, showed much
smaller compliance rates for them. M. Diehl, supra note 3. Studies of payment rates
for joint custodial parents, and those noncustodial parents who are able to remain a
viable part of their children’s lives, show much higher compliance.
79 Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody Resolution, supra note
2; Wallerstein & Kelly, Surviving, supra note 6.
80 Meredith, supra note 66
81 Lamb, supra note 4.
82 Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce & Fathers, supra note
5;.Jacobs;, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5.
83 Huntington, supra note 27.
84 Meredith, supra note 66
85 Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra note 5;
Wallerstein & Kelly, Surviving, supra note 6.
86 Goldstein et al., supra note 43
87 Webster’s Condensed Dictionary, 20th Century Ed. (G&C
Merriam Co. 1909); Webster’s New American Dictionary Colonial Press 1957);
Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second college Fd (Simon and Schuster).
88 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra note 5;
Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra note 5; Jacobs, Treatment of
Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5; Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody
Resolution, supra note 2
89 Teyber & Hoffman, supra note 11; Wallerstein & Kelly,
Effects of Divorce, supra note 5; Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers,
supra note 5; Wallerstein & Kelly, Surviving, supra note 6; Huntington,
supra note 27.
90 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra note 5.
91 Webster’s Condensed Dictionary, 20th Century Ed. (G&C
Merriam Co. 1909); Webster’s New American Dictionary (Colonial Press 1957);
Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Ed. (Simon and Schuster).
92 Webster’s Condensed Dictionary, 20th Century Ed.
(G&C Merriam Co. 1909).
93 Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody Resolution, supra note 2
94 R.R. Rosenstem & G.A. Clare, Feelings and Their Medical
significance, vol. 23 (Columbus, Ohio, Ross Laboratories, 1981).
95 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra note 5;
Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5.
96 Levy, supra note 2; Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects
of Divorce, supra note 5; Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5:
Williams, supra note 63.
97 Williams, supra note 63.
98 Williams, supra note 19; Williams, supra note 63;
Fay, supra note 29.
99 Williams, supra note 63; Fay, supra note 29
100 Roman, Supra note 46; M. Roman & W. Haddad, The
Disposable Parent-. The Case for Joint Custody (1978)
101 Jacobs, The Effect of Divorce on Fathers, supra note 5;
Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note 5; Jacobs, Divorce and Child
Custody Resolution, supra note 2; Williams, supra note 19; Williams, supra note
63; Roman, supra note 46; M. Roman ,& W. Haddad, The Disposable Parent: the
Case for Joint Custody (1978)
102 Williams, supra note 19; Williams, supra note 63.
103 Rosenstem & Clare, supra note 94.
104 Levy, supra note 2; Lamb, supra note 4; Ross, supra
note 4: Herzog, supra note 6; Stahl, supra note 46.
105 Williams, supra note 63; Roman, supra note 46;
Stahl, supra note 46; Greif, supra note 46; A. Abarbanel, Shared
Parenting After Separation and Divorce A Study of Joint Custody, 49 Am. J.
Orthopsychiatry 320 (1979)
106 Fay, supra note 29
107 Weitzman, supra note 24; Goldstein et al., supra
note 43; Why Joint Custody Doesn’t Always Work, 84 Changing times 58 (1984);
J. Schulman & V. Pitt, Second Thoughts on Joint Custody: Analysis of Legislation
and Its implications for Women and Children, in Joint Custody and Shared Parenting
209-22 (J. Folberg ed., 1984).
108 Fay, supra note 15; Roman, supra note 46; Roman
Haddad supra note 100.
109 Roman, supra note 46; Greif, supra note 46; Why Joint
Custody Doesn’t Always Work, supra note 107.
110 Goldstein et al., Supra note 43.
111 Grejf, supra note 46.
112 Wallerstein & Kelly, Effects of Divorce, supra note
5; Wallerstein & Kelly, Surviving, supra note 6; Roman, supra note 46;
Roman & Haddad, supra note 100.
113 Teyber & Hoffman, supra note 11; Jacobs, The Effects
of Divorce on Fathers, supra note 5; Jacobs, Treatment of Divorcing Fathers, supra note
5; Jacobs, Divorce and Child Custody Resolution, supra note 2; Roman, supra note
46; Roman Haddad, supra note 100 |
