Vicki Larson wants to know why there is still surprise when divorced dads are actively co-parenting, have full custody, or are simply there to show up in their children’s lives.
The moms had seen him at the ballet school every Thursday — an attractive 30-something guy with earrings and cropped blond hair. They gossiped about him — Who is he? Is he unemployed? Is he a trust-fund baby? What is he doing with that cute little girl? Where’s her mother? What is he doing here? He just doesn’t fit in.
Finally, a mother got her nerve to walk up to him. “I see you here every week. What are you doing here?”
He was taken aback. What did this mother think he was doing at 3:30 p.m. on a Thursday, the exact time of the beginners’ ballet class?
The answer was embarrassingly obvious: “Taking my daughter to ballet class.”
♦◊♦
It’s a scenario that seems to be plucked off of the pages of Tom Perrotta’s brilliant novel “Little Children,” or the movie starring Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson based on it. But this isn’t a scene from a novel or a movie — it’s real life if you are a stay-at-home-dad or a single or divorced father.
As much as we love the idea of men being an equal partner in a marriage, we don’t necessarily embrace the idea of men being an equal partner in a divorce. The divorced father who shows up for his kids in meaningful and obvious ways, such as taking a daughter to a midday, midweek ballet class, is still considered odd.
It’s a similar but slightly different reality than that of stay-at-home dads — the trail-blazing “feminist, father, and husband who doesn’t care what the gender roles are,” is how Diane Sollee, director of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, sees them. There were about 154,000 men in 2010 who stayed at home to care for their kids while their wife worked. But the recession, which hit men hard, has kept many more men at home, willingly or not. Given the many dads who work part time or consider themselves consultants but who are still primarily the caregivers to their children, that number is probably closer to 2 million at-home dads, according to Aaron Rochlen, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
That number is sure to grow; some 45 percent of men said they’d stay at home if their wife made more money than they do, according to a recent survey by Men’s Health and Spike TV.
♦◊♦
And then there are single fathers, about 1.8 million in the United States — a 27 percent jump in the past decade, according to the latest Census. Of those single-father families, 46 percent are divorced, and another 19 percent are separated. That’s about two-thirds of all single-father families — a pretty substantial portion of men taking their children to ballet classes or Little League practice.
So why are we surprised that many of them are either co-parenting or have full custody? As Sally Abrahms writes in Working Mother magazine:
“Today, it’s not uncommon for fathers seeking sole custody in a contested case to prevail at least 50 percent of the time. And Dad is asking for joint or primary custody more and more: Over the past decade, the number of fathers awarded custody of their children has doubled, according to the latest data. In the current generation of dads, gender doesn’t dictate who changes a diaper or consoles an infant. And as fathers become more entrenched in their roles as co-caregiver, they’re less willing to hand off that role when a marriage breaks down.”
We should applaud that — dad’s an equal partner, exactly what women want! Yet as a society, we still aren’t used to seeing dads being so hands-on with their kids in public. The stereotypes are challenging. All dads — whether stay-at-home, single, co-parenting or full-custody divorced dads — are likely to hear comments rife with judgment, such as, “Are you babysitting today?” or “Giving Mom a break?” if they’re out with their kids. And they are suspect if they volunteer in classrooms, hang around parks while their kids play, or try to join in a playgroup, typically made up of moms. As one stay-at-home dad tells Andrea Doucet, a Brock University sociology professor and author of Do Men Mother, ”It’s kind of bad for men to be interested in other children.”
But divorced dads often experience another layer of judgment and gender-based expectations. “When men parent as single parents, they’re expected not to be as good at it,” says Dr. Wendy A. Paterson, dean of the Ralph C. Wilson Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher College in New York and author of Diaries of a Forgotten Parent: Divorced Dads on Fathering Through and Beyond Divorce. ”We don’t trust men. A lot of women, and they don’t even understand they’re doing this, take on all the mothering and they ‘allow’ the father a peripheral role or an ‘invited in’ role, and then when the father isn’t as big a part of the lives of his children, they get blamed for not participating.”
♦◊♦
It isn’t unusual for divorced fathers to hear comments like, “How often are you allowed to see your daughter?” As Sam Magee, a divorced co-parenting dad, writes, “despite having a solid full time job, a regular salary, and no concerning habits of any kind, people were stunned that I got 50% custody. ‘Wow, that’s a lot,’ people would remark. ‘Every weekend?’ They were shocked that I was actually going to be a consistent and active part of my son’s life post-divorce.”
When people react that way with words, they react that way with behaviors, too. While they may have been fine letting their young daughter have a sleepover when a guy has a wife, not many feel the same when he gets divorced. Now it seems creepy.
That’s on top of the general stereotypes that all divorced men are womanizers, cheaters and dead-beat dads; after all he must have done something wrong for her to dump his sorry butt.
“There’s a huge need for people who can mediate the separation of a family into two families, and not one family with a visiting dad. Calling someone a visitor; the language of that has to change,” says Paterson, a single mom. “Women will never be liberated until men are.”
–
Originally published on Huffington Post. Vicki Larson also blogs at OMGChronicles.
About Vicki Larson
I must live in a pretty nice place. There are plenty of single dads and divorced dads around here who encounter no suspicion from the moms we know. They have kids ,we have kids, they know each other, we see each other around town,it’s all very accepting.
There have been tons of girl sleepovers at my house where the only guys there have been my son and I. None of the parents had a problem with that. I like where I live.
It sounds like you do live in a nice place, and have nice friends and aquaintances.
I think there might be some surprise, because men are so rarely equal caregivers before they get divorced. I’m pretty outdoorsy, and I can tell you that it’s ALWAYS the women who have to show up for a bike ride or ski trip with their kids. The men always manage to foist the kids off on their spouse so they can go off and have fun. Most guys do that after they are divorced, too, so of course it’s surprising when they take more of an interest.
The funny thing is that this isn’t a criticism, exactly – I don’t blame them. If I had kids and my husband would watch them most of the time, why wouldn’t I want to go off and have my own fun personal time? I think that wives/mothers should be more assertive about making their spouses pick up their fair share if they don’t want to end up martyred and stuck with the kids all the time. Conversely, women who are getting divorced shouldn’t fight for MORE kid time, they should insist on 50-50 time whether the guy wants it or not. I really don’t get why the argument is always about who gets them more. I’d say that women only have themselves to blame for men being such “meh” fathers, but men are to blame, too, for taking advantage of this dynamic and then being surprised when they don’t get equal time with their kids once they divorce.
“they should insist on 50-50 time whether the guy wants it or not”
Is that really whats best for the kids? I can’t imagine it’d be much fun, or very good for self esteem, to be lumped on a caregiver who doesn’t really want you there while mom goes off for some me time, however much its deserved.
Is what’s really what’s best for the kids forced fatherlessness with Mom? In a situation where she is financially incentivized to cut a child’s father away from her upbringing?
Decades of research on fatherlessness show the lasting harm to children. If you need links to the research, please let me know.
I’m sure it does, but the harm is caused by fathers (or mothers) not wanting to take an active part in their lives. This can’t be rectified by forcing their kids on them, it won’t change how they feel about them and it certainly won’t make the kids more loved.
The financial incentive would equally encourage fathers to consider spending more time with their kids.
You might want to peruse the fathers & Families website for some educational information on the legal and financial barriers fathers face trying to be in their children’s lives when they are divorced or never-married in the first place.
It is a sad and hateful feminist myth that divorced fathers don’t want to spend time with their children.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org
“I think there might be some surprise, because men are so rarely equal caregivers before they get divorced. ”
“The men always manage to foist the kids off on their spouse so they can go off and have fun. Most guys do that after they are divorced, too, so of course it’s surprising when they take more of an interest.”
Interesting comment – not much data to support the bigotry, though.
It’s surprising how so many women after a divorce take more of an interest in bringing in more income for themselves. At the expense of their ex-husband, of course.
This divorced father is tired of the legal and social hatred towards fathers. I am enjoying my off time with my two girlfriends, whom I see when I am not with my children.
Until the bigotry and biased incompetence of family court is changed, I think we will see marriage rates drop further in the US. Of course, feminists will blame Peter Pan syndrome or some other male malady for this shirking of responsibility instead of looking in the mirror themselves.
Just wait until gay marriage becomes legal and recognized in our “family” courts… Then, we will see true bigotry and bias!! It seems to my peers and I that the divorce courts and litigant-prone attorneys have tapped the bottom of the proverbial (financial) barrel with all of the bankrupt fathers in our country and are greedily awaiting this “new” market to exploit. mjay, I too hope the bigotry and biased incompetence of family court changes. One can hope!
How is it same-sex marriage is a special opportunity in this respect? How is a same-sex divorce different from a different-sex one? We’ve had same-sex marriage here for 20+ years, and there’s no sign this changes divorce much.
Change in respect to opportunity for further exploitation of a legal system by emotional parties and adversarial litigators. We haven’t heard much in this regard. Wait and see.
“”To divorce lawyers, gay marriage is the best thing since the Magna Carta. “It basically doubles the population pool of potential clients.” Manhattan-based lawyer Raoul Felder.
http://www.towleroad.com/2011/07/happy-gay-marriage-day-new-york.html#ixzz1iOXpgOvv
Its a special opportunity because theres fresh muck to rake. LGBT parents often aren’t seen as capable caregivers in the eyes of the community and the law. I’m sure theres more than a few mercenary lawyers (and their clients) who would be willing to exploit this fact to gain custody of children they wouldn’t otherwise.
Eg.: Homophobic grandparents target surviving widow(er)’s kids after his/her partner looses their battle with disease.
Such parents are especially vulnerable when they’re not biologically related to their children. I’ve heard of such parents having to apply to “adopt” kids they’ve been raising for years.
OK; Maybe the US legal system and the weird emphasis on litigation is just beyond my comprehension.
What I do know is that same-sex divorce does not appear to present special challenges here or give rise to particularly ugly cases. In fact, the key learning with same-sex marriage is that is really hasn’t change much – not even the emphasis on heteronormative family structures.
Lars – I suspect that is the issue, the US has a particularly litigious culture. In Canada we haven’t seen any particular uptick in weird family court cases involving LGBT parents, nor is there any consensus that LGBT people are less capable caregivers for their children. Then again we also have a court culture that emphasizes mediation and has strict formulas for who gets money and how much which takes a lot of the acrimony out of settlements (not all of the acrimony, but I am often astounded at alimony payouts in US family court that I hear of – that is a really different settlement system than most industrialized countries have these days).
Megan – sounds like the Canadian system is much closer to the Danish one. In particular, things child support, alimony, etc. are done according to formula, with simple defaults that apply in to all but the most unusual situations. Essentially, you’ll be able to figure out what the child support payment is going to be in 10 minutes from a public website; no need or use for a lawyer. And unless you’re going to skip out of the country, you can forget about defaulting on the payments.
I have several friends who’ve gone thru’ divorce, with and w/o children, and while some have certainly been nasty and some end up in endless fights about visitation and who gets to do what with the children after, I’ve never heard of anyone who end up with lawyer and all the nonsense you read about here.
As I said – the US legal system is probably just too weird for me to comprehend. But what I take away from that is that the complaints are really nothing to do with gender or gender relations, and everything to do with a broken public administration.
Well said.
There is actually a TON of data to support the idea that women are the primary caregivers even in two-parent marriages. I’m not sure at all why you think this is just some sort of fantasy.
I’ve no idea why there is always a big fight over the kids though. Maybe if it was a legal requirement that each divorced parent HAS to watch the kids 50% of the time, people would think harder before having them and be more careful to not create kids if they don’t want them. I really don’t know.
I don’t think it’s all motivated by money because if that were the case, there are way easier ways to get money than to wring it out of a former spouse via an ongoing series of court appearances in exchange for endless childcare duties. People who aren’t primary caregivers, or equal caregivers, have to pay, though, and that makes perfect sense to me. Knowing that it’s the way it is, why do people keep having kids and getting divorced? It’s all a choice. People have the choice to make sure they don’t have kids if they are not 100% sure they want to be responsible for them, whether in time or in money.
There is actually a TON of data to support the idea that women are the primary caregivers even in two-parent marriages. I’m not sure at all why you think this is just some sort of fantasy.
I agree, this is often the case. Maybe the reaction comes because you present it as if this is always the case?
I see your point, Tyler, but nobody is omniscient. One day, the mother of my daughter, who was then barely two (and whom I left the workforce to care for, mind you) announced, “I wanted to love you, I tried to love you, but I love (Guy A) and always have.” People have a talent for hiding ambivalence.
Tyler, I believe that there’s a struggle between parents over the care of their kids during a divorce because of unresolved adult issues in the marriage. At least that’s the case in many situations. I believe it was the cause of the bitter disputes in my own first marriage when we brought Nicky into the world. It was an act of love committed together, but nurturing our 6-year-old became a source of conflict, especially when she insisted on me settling for visitation to comprise my relationship with our boy. My lawyer in Texas advised me that my chances of winning shared custody in 1989 were not good during a disputed divorce with a mother who battling shared custody. For the next dozen years, my life revolved around Nicky’s visit nights and weekends, and he and I are very close now. I am experiencing the joy of primary caregiving again as a grandfather to his son. Sometimes the smallest things, like making a school-day lunch, can be such a precious gift to be given as well as revel in ourselves as caring men.
And please be careful about making judgements about men and what they usually do based on your personal experience. “It’s ALWAYS the women who have to show up for a bike ride or ski trip with their kids. The men always manage to foist the kids off.” I don’t doubt that’s happened to you on your child’s bike rides and ski trips, but try not state your own experience as if it’s a fact here. A loving and caring man can be a good parent in the absence of any woman at all. Lucky men can find a trusting and mature woman who’s confident in her own parenting — enough to give a man space to find his place in a child’s life. We are not rare, either. Sometimes what you see depends on where you look and how you choose to focus.
It’s interesting that this article appears on this fine website within days of Christmas. It can be such a battleground between divorced adults. My own experience with my first wife was to watch her insist on half of Christmas Day visitation, even though she and her family are Jewish. I was raised Catholic. In more of my own story, I started my own independent writing company after my divorce and wanted equal custody — a change in the “standard Texas family law” agreement I was forced to sign to avoid a court battle — I wanted to be a caregiver in more of my boy’s life, because I’d be unable to pay the same level of support at first while I wrote freelance articles to start my new company. I was denied this adjustment, too. Those were old and punitive laws and customs. I am so glad to see the new generation accept these parenting expectations, rights and responsibilities for men. Spread the word — and make yourself a source of hope for young mothers and fathers who want to resolve failing marriages without taking any nurturing away from loving dads.
Thanks for this Vicki. My daughter was 2 and son 6 months when I got divorced. My life work has been to show up for them as a father despite never being granted physical custody. I had to negotiate pretty much every hour I got to see them.
My daughter got into college last week. She, her boyfriend, and my 15 year old son were sitting in my living room late one night just afterwards.
I was so proud of them for becoming amazing young adults. And I was just a little bit proud of myself for sticking it out to see the miracle before my eyes. I could have given up I suppose. But really that never seemed like a option in my heart. My love was too profound no matter what anyone else said.
Tom, do you feel your custodial situation was fair or equitable? Was it good for your kids?
Did you feel your treatment by the legal system was just and equitable?
This is an honest question, and sorry for being abrupt, but why did you have kids without having a stable relationship in the first place? Divorced 6 months after having a kid – really? That kind of thing always blows my mind.
I don’t think divorce is the demon, here, it’s having kids into crappy relationships that is doing all the damage.
You know, when women went into the workplace, there was plenty of surprise then, too. Men haven’t been good about asserting ourselves as equal parents. And there are plenty of men who are happy to ride along with societal norms — let’s be honest, too many men do check out after divorce. That’s not acceptable, and men shouldn’t tolerate it of other men.
As for me, I’ve always had my daughter a significant percentage of her time (roughly half of waking hours, and about a third of overall time outside of school; I see her 5-7 days a week). This isn’t because of any magic or because my ex is a saint; it’s because I simply assumed I would, and didn’t put it up for debate.
And yes, occasionally I get odd comments. So what? Women got far worse when they joined the workforce. I can deal with the occasional surprise (and the inverse, the “oh how wonderful you must be!” that I am not owed for doing my duty as a parent). Indeed, it’s important we put up with it, so that future generations of men don’t have to.
Strange, I don’t recall men’s groups lobbying to keep women out of the workplace while touting their enthusiasm for working women.
Women got “far worse” when they joined the workforce? Were they actively cut out of their children’s lives? Was the government enforcing their payments for their kids, but not their visitation with their kids?
No, not true at all.
I like the comparison you make. And I think you’re right; fathers do need to assert their right to parenting. Some courts are coming around now and making 50/50 custody standard.
The court was surprised when I “agreed” to 50/50. They did not understand that I insisted on it. My ex- was not a good husband, but he was determined to be a good father and he has been a good father. I had no desire to separate him from his daughter, even tho the courts here would have happily done so if I had asked it.
I look forward to this fatherhood movement becoming common or mainstream. It’s what’s best for children.
Kuos to you, Kitti, for putting your kid’ needs first! The country needs more parents like yourself.
Kudos to you, Kitti, for putting your kids’ needs first! The country needs more parents like yourself.
Thank you!
Well done, and glad to hear hes trying to be a good father.
We need more Moms like you, for sure.
I spent $30k of my savings trying to get half the time with my sons and got the every-other weekend screw job because the courts are so biased.
You can help, Kitti. Seriously. Tell mainstream feminists that what is known as ‘joint custody presumption’ is NOT ‘forced joint custody” any more than child-support is forced subsidization of an ex’s lifestyle. NOW was instrumental in having California’s legislature rescind joint custody presumption. California, the bluest state in the union! Tell your legislature about your experience while you’re at it, too, even if you have to clothespin your nose and work with FRAs to do it.
Exactly! Well put, Jeff.
It is weird how people lionize men for doing what they should be doing – raising their kids.
It’s disappointing and divisive to make an assault on the praise for caring men. And Tyler, good people do bring children into the world and then soon find that parenting together everyday is bad for them and especially for their child. Sometimes they do this after many years married but without children. It’s compassionate to make a way to let a man who loves his son or daughter share in that wonder and duty. Again, I believe we want to be sure here that our own experiences are not stated as if they’re facts for everybody. It’s sad and hard to have a divorce of battle over a child. After six years of marriage, I was then in a divorce — yes, a relationship too — for 12 years, many of which were riddled with conflicts. Take a moment to see and accept that people make mistakes. The solution to these problems is not “they never should have had kids in the first place if they were not a good couple.” Becoming parents deserves careful thought, to be sure, but parenting is a different challenge for everybody. On this website the voice of the good man is often present. Sometimes we are lucky to have good women to celebrate us. It blows my mind, as you say, when anyone would want to choke off any praise for a parent’s love.
Oh please. We have had decades of people lionizing women for doing what tyhey should be doing, going out and geting a job to support themsleves. Rosie the Riveter? What a heroine she was, for deigning to take a job that men had literally been killing each other to get just ten years before. Amelia Earhart? She was every grl’s icon back in grade school. So spare me the moralizing about men doing what they should be doing and then getting some credit for it.
A friend of mine is a stay at home stepdad, and it gets pretty bad, as he’s part of a pretty traditional community, so for a man to stay home and take care of a kid, let alone one that isn’t biologically his, is just short of scandalous. But he’s perfected the art of the intimidating smile. Looks perfectly innocent- a toothpaste commercial grin- which can quell any sort of condescending comment someone wants to make. I wish he’d to tutorials.
“And yes, occasionally I get odd comments. So what? ”
Those odd comments can easily turn into baseless allegatins that can you in jail for a very, very long time. That’s what. Wake up and look at the world as it really is.
I do think a lot of this issue has to do with geographic location and the kind of people who live in a certain area. I was a stay-at-home dad for a few years, and I noticed a big difference in how I was viewed depending on where I was. My wife at the time was active-duty military and, believe it or not, when I found myself around other military families or spouses, the fact that I was a stay-at-home dad wasn’t an issue. There are enough active-duty mothers in the military, and enough stay-at-home dads who utilize on-base resources and services, that it’s not that unusual of a sight.
After we moved to a larger city however, and the people I found myself surrounded by were decidedly NOT military or military spouses, it was another story. John Q. Public, at least in this regard, is much more uncomfortable with the idea of a stay-at-home dad, and if I wasn’t exactly unwelcome, I certainly wasn’t as easily accepted. My guess (and this is just speculation) is that the level of acceptance or unacceptance probably varies with geographic location location (and the accompanying social norms) as well as an area’s overall income level.
It’s an interesting topic, and I’d love to see further follow-up.
Glad to hear the military is so enlightened! Pity about the city folk
Thanks for this piece Vicki. Every voice counts.
I do wish that a father getting custody always meant that the father would be a consistent presence in their child’s life. Both men and women treat child custody like some sort of trophy, and I’ve seen some mothers, but mostly fathers, gaining full or partial custody simply to get back at the other parent, then dump the kid(s) onto their new spouse. The focus needs to be on what’s truly good for the kids- caring, involved parents who provide stability for their children. Sometimes that will mean that a father has equal or more involvement; sometimes that will mean less or none. But usually, when both Mom and Dad have been about equally involved in providing care for their kids, that should continue for as long as the kids want it to be so.
Since fathers get a tiny share of custody of their children after divorce, I wonder how you came to your conclusion about fathers gaining custody after divorce.
Was it based in fact, or based on impressions and bias? Looking forward to learning more.
By working for two family lawyers, and knowing several more personally. While it’s anecdata, note that I’m not making any empirical claims, and neither are you- one case does not a national trend make.
That’s great. I work with a national parental rights organization.
I’m happy to share educational data with you if you like.
I favor a joint-custody presumption, but given your work, you know this does not mean automatic 50-50 in every case.
Divorced men are too often treated abysmally in family courts . I support the notion that everything in divorce proceedings be shared equally. That means equal (50%) physical custody and equal financial responsibility. The notion that a child has a real home, and dad’s place demeans fathers. When children are shared equally, they have two homes, and fathers can take pride in how they create warm and welcome homes for their kids. I was a single dad, and I suffered through family court. There wasn’t any dignity in the struggle, and although I won custody of my boys, I was forced to spend money I didn’t have, and time I could have better spent being a dad. Fair doesn’t come into the argument about custody for fathers. That’s wrong, but men can work together to create real social change.
Men must begin to fight for legislation that protects their rights as fathers. They need to create a public awareness in the media. They need to organize and become a political force to be reckoned with.
This is a just cause, and one I fully support and would volunteer to help change.
Stop whining
hahahaha! Classic
Well said
He was being ironic. You didn’t catch that, did you? It’s the standard response men get for bringing anyhthing like this up, and there is always some asshole white knight to swoop in a defend the ladies’ honor. Now thank leta for schooling you.
You could be right, but shouldn’t it start with men being more active and involved parents BEFORE divorce comes into play?
Whether they are or not has no bearing on the outcomes in family court.
Tyler says:
“You could be right, but shouldn’t it start with men being more active and involved parents BEFORE divorce comes into play?”
Here is a supposition Tyler. Let’s say you have two great parents who both have a degree in child development. They BOTH spend lots of child-minding time, engaging with their two children, engaging their imaginations or creativity, etc…
Now let’s suppose they are both unemployed. What do you think their chances of adopting a third child. Even examplary parents will get turned down if they cannot show proof of being able to support a child’s MATERIAL needs.
The simple fact that just because a father and mother agree that dad will relinquish his RIGHT to child-minding time to support the family’s well-being, does not mean he should be LOCKED in to that decision for all time.
We certainly don’t tell mothers they are LOCKED in to their work/home balance forever (in marriage or divorce). In point of fact, many mothers move freely from full time work to part time work to not working as she wants and the rest of the family must adapt.
Why does the entire family have to adopt to the mothers whims, but the father is “locked in” to his work/home choice?
While dressing it up in male responsibility the simple fact is this is outright bias and dehumanization of fathers. Many fathers do not take up the burden/right of child-minding time because they are taking up a different burden of supporting the family’s material needs.
Parenting time is a right the father can relinquish, but (in a just world) it shouldn’t belong to anybody to take away. If you support a fathers parental time being taken away by courts or the mother post-divorce, that is bias and discrimination (pure and simple) as we never tell mothers they are “locked in” to ANYTHING.
Well spoken, John D. My seperation and divorce experience afforded the hindsight that working two jobs to support a large, growing family which enabled our children’s mother the ability to be a full-time mother was a detriment to my parenting wishes and involvement post-divorce. A decision and agreement which I thought was honorable and a worthy sacrifice for our family was used against me as I was penalized and relegated to the standard ever-other-weekend father parenting schedule, (Worksheet B) yet still provide now for expenses now for two completely seperate households. Everyone in the family is set up for failure in this regard.
Thanks MM,
It’s interesting how chivalrists and feminists think in lockstep about male responsibility, but I rarely see things going the other way (female responsibility).
Shared parenting is absolutely the best model for both parents and for child happiness and well-being.
The simple fact is, some mothers might lose a little privilege and some income from child support. But, on the flipside without being joined at the hip to the children the mother will have the ability to volunteer, go to school, retrain for a career, or pursue other things for fulfillment.
It’s funny because the sole custody model actually REINFORCES gender stereotypes (provider & home-maker) just without the man living in the house. Shared parenting breaks gender stereotypes.
If women like dancer fear shared parenting then the only thing I have to respond to that is:
Check your privilege.
Parents are treated quite badly by family courts, period. Mothers have it bad, too, which is why I think the problem is greater than the gender of the parent and needs to remain on the kids. If Mom was barely home but wants full custody, she’d better be ready to explain why the kids’ lives should go through such a drastic change. If Dad is buying a new Ferrari each year and Mom is trying to get by with a 20 year old Honda, demanding that financial responsibility be split down the middle is rather harsh and doesn’t benefit the kids in the least.
I don’t think stay at home moms usually encounter the bias seen in this case:
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=21672
I have a friend in that situation. Her husband left her with 4 children AND all their credit card debt. My friend had to argue with him every single month to get child support. He wouldn’t always pick up his kids on his weekends. When he did, he’d take them straight to his mother’s house. In the meantime, he immediately re-married a professional woman and proceeded to live in great comfort on dual incomes.
Family court t ultimately benefits only government bureaucrats and attorneys.
Your anecdote is all too common, as is the less widely acknowledged bias and active interference with a fathers’ relationship with his children.
Ah, I did the child support dance too, until I realized my ex was just itching to have absolutely no responsibility, and was willing to hurt our kid to be free of it. So I gave him almost everything he wanted- no pestering him to visit, no calls when the child support was a week late and short by half, and he gets to go do what he does. The only thing I didn’t give him was the nookie he kept trying to get while he was between girlfriends. Oddly enough, the folk who always bug me to “go after the jerk” and sue for child support aren’t your stereotypical feminist- it’s the people (usually men) who think of feminists in stereotypical terms. But I realized that more important than my “right” to child support was what my kid was seeing and hearing, and I needed to keep my kid’s environment as stable as possible. The Cheese Monster is doing much better now, and that’s what matters- keeping the Cheese Monsters safe and happy.
Dancer,
“Ah, I did the child support dance too, until I realized my ex was just itching to have absolutely no responsibility, and was willing to hurt our kid to be free of it.”
Dancer, it’s terrible that your ex didn’t want to be a part of your children’s lives.
However, the flipside is that many good fathers are legally forced out of their children’s lives by equally bad mothers. The difference is that mothers have cops and courts on their side when they decide to keep loving fit fathers from the children’s lives.
This is a huge travesty and it is child abuse to rob a child of a loving fit parent.
As a supposed progressive modern society fathers and children deserve better.
The lone agency I see standing against radical feminists (who oppose fathers equal parenting rights) and these misandric anti-father laws is fathersandfamilies d0t 0rg.
The are fighting for true equality and the rights of mothers & fathers to both be in children’s lives post-divorce (and the right of a child to keep both parents in her/his life).
They are one of the most egalitarian and I dare say noble organizations I have seen in a long time.
It seems even some feminists are beginning to see that F&F is a nobody’s enemy (except maybe vengeful mothers and radfems).
They shared an email campaign with a feminist DV organization regarding a department stores recent ad depicting violence.
They also shared a fundraising with a LGBT (sorry if I have the initials in the wrong order) organization regarding F&F’s campaign to highlight the injustice done to a lesbian social mother who was going to court to try to get visitation/shared custody of the couple’s daughter (the birth mother broke up with the social mother, and started dating men).
The tides are changing. In several posts you say it should be about the children. And that is exactly why F&F has made huge traction. They are beginning to get wealthy donors (from hollywood and other places) and get face time with big politicians.
With any luck rebuttable presumptive shared custody may be the law of the land in all 50 states in the next 15 years. Thank god.
Dancer:
I am sure you would have given anything for the father of your children to been a good dad and involved.
So then, why would you support the sole custody system which enables mothers to force loving fit fathers from children’s lives?
That doesn’t make sense. Why would you say that a father’s parenting time has to be minimized after a divorce?
If you would have given anything for your kids to have a loving fit dad, why do you support taking this away from other kids?
At least the courts recognise her right to child support. In that case the problem seems to be less with the courts and more with the asshole who skipped out on his kids.
Courts treat family law far too much like property law, and much less like helping arrange the best possible situation for children during a difficult time. They “split” children 50-50 like yet another asset, often disregarding the facts of the children’s lives prior to the divorce, and seem to reward the parent with the best manipulation tactics or the most money. If it were more in the interests of children, both parents would be required to go through assessments of how much care they provided before the divorce, the situation that the divorced parents are transitioning into and how much that’s likely to change given certain parenting arrangements, and look seriously into allegations of abuse. Some of that happens, but not nearly enough of it.
Dancer says:
“Courts treat family law far too much like property law, and much less like helping arrange the best possible situation for children during a difficult time. They “split” children 50-50 like yet another asset, often disregarding the facts of the children’s lives prior to the divorce”
Dancer, once again you have it wrong. The sole custody model rules the land. There are only 8 shared custody states. All the data points to shared custody being lower conflict, and creating children with higher happiness and well-adjusted.
The situation before the divorce is irrelevant. The reason being this:
If a father relinquishes his parental child-minding time to pursue a career for the family he is contributing to the well-being of his family. Earnings mean something.
You could have a great couple both of which would be great parents but are unemployed, but they would not be able to adopt as adoption agencies have to know you can be able to handle a child’s MATERIAL needs.
This is a loving sacrifice fathers (and more and more higher earning mothers) make for their children. It shouldn’t be a noose around his neck for all time.
The courts would never tell a mother just divorced that she CAN’T quite her job because she “locked herself in” to a certain arrangement and she’s frozen in it because to upset the child’s continuum conquers all.
The fact that a father relinquishes a large portion of his child-minding time (in a just world) should not mean that he cannot have it back after a divorce.
Firstly, it’s proven that this is damaging to children. Secondly, it’s his right (to parental time) to relinquish (during marriage or divorce) not the mothers right to take away, and certainly not yours or my right to interfere in their private decision.
This is just dehumanizing to men, and it is harmful to children.
Hopefully, Dancer, these assessments of pre-and-post facto situations will result in Mom being told to get a job if Dad agrees to quit his second job.
I think too many fathers defer to what the mother wants instead of enforcing their 50-50 rights and looking out for the well being of the children. If both parents are wanting it 50-50 should be the norm not the exception.
Exactly. I wonder what motivates them to “defer” as you put it. Surely any dad who really cared about being an equal parent would insist on the 50-50? Why don’t they – because it’s too hard to work and watch the kids, it’s not as easy as just having them every other weekend, they don’t know how to watch the kids – what is it?
No. In many states, the higher earning spouse must pay the legal bills of the other spouse, so mothers can drag out conflict as long as they can without too much expense.
Also, many attorneys advise their male clients to settle before costs balloon out of control.
Also, judges are trained and are from a generation that often has biases about custody and child care. I’ve heard judges say a “man should work”, and deny a father custody.
Overall, women default on child support at greater rates than men, and they abuse children at higher rates than men, but they still benefit from this bias, and feminist organizations lobby hard to maintain this discrimination in the form of statutes and laws which keep it going.
Family court is not a court of law, it’s a court of equity, so criminal court guidelines for evidentiary due process, constitutionality, etc. do not apply.
mjay, to your point, I experienced this exact outcome where my ex-wife’s attorney, (a new attorney taking on her first few cases with her same sex partner and known as one of Colorado’s most active Lesbian & Gay Rights firms) dragged on our case with discovery questions, demands limiting parenting time for me based on false accusations, (such as supervised and/or very limited parenting time and access to our children, etc.) which brought our legal costs to well over $40,000. I remember one convo with my ex-wife staring that she isn’t even being billed for her lawyers time! I was flabbergasted!! An endless trial of reactionary, (and excessive attorney hourly bills on my behalf). In court, her attorney jokingly said to the judge that my ex-wife owed in excess of $22,000 which if I am not responsible for, she will likely never see paid from her client. What a travesty! Errant and wanton disregard to the best interests and financial needs required for providing for our large family. There needs to be sanctions applied to such unchecked litigative attorneys.
Maybe they don’t want to fight in front of the kids.
They knows that it is hard enough for the kids to go through the divorce. they don’t want to expose the children to the custody battle, as well.
In this case, “deferring” is agreeing with the mother, who, apparently, does not want to let the kids spend 50% of the time with their father.
Why would she do that? To be vindictive? Because he is a worse parent? To get child support? Because, she thinks that the kids are HER kids?
-Jut
That’s part of why I’m not pursuing a child support claim- because I didn’t want my kid’s first memories of the interaction between Mom and Dad to be the battle over child support or me begging his dad to visit without having to pay, ahem, “in kind”. Divorced parents have it rough, and everyone gives up something they’d like for the sake of the child.
Some mothers want sole custody for a negotiating point- something that can be compromised on, as much of this is about bargaining. Some want sole custody because they are the only ones providing care, and want things to stay as consistent as possible for the kids. Some are genuinely concerned about their ex’s fitness as a parent. Some are trying to eliminate issues of possibly having to pay child support to a father who isn’t caring for the kids. I knew one case where the dad would pick up the kids at the supervised exchange, then immediately turn around and drop them off at the ex’s house. He was looking to be seen as spending time with the kids, but knew that her testimony about the instant return wouldn’t be believed, as he was a sneaky bugger. (I do have stories about women doing dirty tricks, but they are just plain sad.) Mostly, though, uninterested parents drop the kid off at Grandma’s or with the new bf/gf. But when you’re told that every time the kids need something, it’s your job to handle it, one tends think of them as your kids alone. And I nearly weep every time I hear fathers act like that and then demand sole custody and no visitation. It’s nothing but another way to abuse a spouse.
Yes, there can be all kinds of motivating factors. My favorite is a friend of mine who has full custody of his son and who STILL pays child support to the mother, who never sees her child.
Why does he pay her? Essentially, it is hush money. If he tries to reduce his support (not even considering getting HER pay support), he expects a fight for custody.
So, he pays her so he can continue to live with his kid.
-Jut
The rate of paying among non-custodial single mothers is much worse than for NC dads. As you mentioned most dads won’t push for child support, because he knows (thanks to misandrist family courts) the mother can yank custody anytime she wants.
Dancer says:
“And I nearly weep every time I hear fathers act like that and then demand sole custody and no visitation. It’s nothing but another way to abuse a spouse.”
Yet another reason why the sole custody model is outdated.
It’s time to bring family court into the new millennium and break down some gender stereotypes.
“Exactly. I wonder what motivates them to “defer” as you put it.”
Cultural tradition and the legal regime. Fathers know sooner or later in a marriage that their wifves hold thier kids as hostages, so they had better make nice. That includes deerring to her and tolerating her mommy-blocking. And even if they don’t, the family courts will enforce it on them and their children.
I think the problem is that we are thinking of custody of children as a right and not as a tool that’s needed to keep things stable for the kids. If custody is granted to a parent who’s never changed their diapers, doesn’t know what school they go to and who their friends are, that’s going to be a significant disruption for the child(ren), who didn’t get a choice in this. If a parent wants 50-50 “rights” to custody and financial responsibility they need to claim their 50-50 “rights” to sitting up all night with a kid with a fever, buying all the doodads needed for dance class, and helping with homework BEFORE the papers are filed and not after.
Fathers who wish to be involved in their children’s lives, (post separation or divorce) SHOULD be… period!
If you’re a dad, sometimes even that is not enough: http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=21672
If you’re a mom, sometimes that and more is not enough to make the case for custody:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/05/17/how-family-courts-punish-abused-women/
Seems common sense lacks in a court’s decision to invoke justice. A quick “coming to the table” with all parties involved would make for a rational judgment as to WHO to enforce a restraining order against. In my experience, because of the court’s fear for such events cited in Ms. Magainzine’s article, the court’s impose restraining orders “with an abundance of caution” which disrupts a parent’s involvement in their children’s lives unnecessarily; further exacerbating an already fragile situation. What is so wrong with simply coming together to discuss the best interest of the children like mature adults? Our court system seems to perpetuate this “dysfunction” by imposing staid automatic judgment upon one person’s testimony and NO evidence.
The article you linked to is so full of inaccurate information, I’m not clear what you’re trying to say.
It must be based on the same information that “Breaking the Silence” was based on.
This “expose” was supposed to be an objective documentary exposing how abusive fathers were winning custody by laying false claims of parental alienation against mothers. It was made to be aired on PBS.
However, the PBS ombudsman stated this documentary did not adhere to journalistic ethics and standards. It also turns out the mother who lost custody did so because she initiated a blatant campaign of instructing the kids to make false statements. She was even recorded at a visitation center instructing her kids to make false statements of sexual touching from the father.
Feminist advocates will stop at nothing to interfere with fathers equal parental rights.
Dancer says:
“If you’re a mom, sometimes that and more is not enough to make the case for custody:
ht tp://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/05/17/how-family-courts-punish-abused-women/”
Dancer, you’re example doesn’t even apply. Firstly, a single incidence of a father killing his child does not a study make. The 2006 child maltreatment study shows that mothers commit 70% of parental child abuse. Mothers also commit 70% of parental child murders.
Secondly, the father DIDN’T HAVE CUSTODY. So this article tries to state the family courts are en masse giving custody to abusing dads the one example was fraudulent.
Better evidence please.
The article is about a book. A book that assesses many cases. Do try to keep up.
If it’s made by the same radfems that produced the debunked “breaking the silence” then it is most likely advocacy research that reaches a conclusion and backs the data into it.
“Breaking the silence” which was to air on PBS and show abusive dads were using claims of Paretal Alienation to secure custody was a farce.
The poster-mother shown in this “special” was filmed at a dv center coaching her kids into falsely claiming dad inappropriately touched them.
Are you seriously putting forth a claim that mothers are unfairly losing custody en masse when fathers get 6% sole physical custody to mothers 80%?
What planet are you from. Try to keep up?
Maybe you should start your engine, because you seem to be in neutral (or reverse).
Oh, boy, direct from the magazine that believed wholeheartedly in satanic ritual abuse at daycare centers.
Yes, exactly.
I really don’t think any of that custody stuff does anything for kids whatsoever. It’s the PARENTS who ultimately raise their kids right, divorced or not, and not court orders.
Frankly, we have a bunch of piss-poor parents these days, of both sexes.
Dancer says:
“I think the problem is that we are thinking of custody of children as a right and not as a tool that’s needed to keep things stable for the kids. If custody is granted to a parent who’s never changed their diapers, doesn’t know what school they go to and who their friends are, that’s going to be a significant disruption for the child(ren)”
This is not necessarily (or even in the majority) true. The few studies I have seen on divorce outcomes show that shared custody is the best outcome for children.
For one thing, the sole custody model is a “winner takes all model” that breeds resentment and anger.
Shared custody (when it’s possible, it may not always be possible, or both parents may not both be fit parents) cuts this way down and is the best outcome for children, and a lower conflict solution for parents.
Children shouldn’t lose access to a parent (OF EITHER GENDER) just because the parents can’t stay married.
The sole custody model is simply wrong and is often a form of child abuse to the children.
Well, I guess it doesn’t matter if the kids are actually taken care of, as long as that piece of paper says that the “split” was even.
You’re opening is cute and illustrative, but what really struck me was your follow-up – that men who take their daughters to ballet class are either stay-at-home-dads or single parents. How about regular married fathers with a regular job, taking their kids to dance classes, music classes, football, or whatever? Isn’t that done in the US – or is that the domain of mothers? Because, if it is, I fully understand why mothers would be surprised when a divorced father show up.
Children need their fathers to be involved; not just SAHD’s and single father – all fathers. And fathers really aught to give themselves the gift of being there with their kids. If men taking their daughters to dance classes is unusual, something is badly broken. We must insist on a balance between being working parents and having time with our kids.
It’s very unusual in the US to have dads taking their kids around to classes and sports and games on a regular basis.
I did it regularly after my divorce, and started a play group at my eldest daughter’s elementary school. It was an awesome time in my life – the kids were fantastic and they’re doing great now, in large part because they have an active, involved Dad in their lives.
Question – why only after the divorce? I absolutely agree the children benefit fro having an active, involved father – and not just children with divorced parents. Why not take your children to dance lessons, sports, etc., while married?
I do it all the time; it’s great fun, and it gives you so many opportunities for being intimate and having quality conversations with your kids, plus you meet other parents and get a chance to bounce ideas and problems with them.
I have a managerial position that gives me a good deal of flexibility in work hours, so for us it’s somewhat easier that I take the kids to things like that – and I have to say, I meet about as many fathers and mothers when I do. But then, we probably have a higher frequency of two-working-adults households here than what is common in the US.
Lars:
“Question – why only after the divorce? I absolutely agree the children benefit fro having an active, involved father – and not just children with divorced parents. Why not take your children to dance lessons, sports, etc., while married?”
“I have a managerial position that gives me a good deal of flexibility in work hours”
Guess you just answered you own question.
Flex time simply isn’t a reality for many fathers who work jobs with no flextime and mandatory overtime.
I would turn this around. If the father (most likely with the mother’s blessings) decided his time was best spent on the material needs of the family rather than child-minding I agree that this might negatively affect children.
But then, why do U.S. courts use the above paragraph as justification when the dad DOES want to spend time with the kids post-divorce?
If we’re all agreed that loving engaged dads is a good thing (and the evidence points to the fact is is a VERY GOOD THING), then what justification is there to take that away from children and dads?
No, I don’t think I’ve answered my own question.
I understand that many families arrange themselves such that the man work long hours, leaving little time to spend with the kids. But if we truly believe that having engaged fathers is good (and it sounds like we do), why are we doing things this way? If fathers truly want more time with their children, like the opportunity to take them to dance lessons, why do fathers accept an arrangement where they can’t do that. If you can’t get what you want, you must change things – and no-one but yourself can be responsible for making that change happen.
In other words – if as fathers we really want time with our kids, we should not “decide our time is best spent on the material needs of the family”. In doing so, we rob ourselves of time with our kids, and we rob our kids of having an engaged father. It’s rotten deal.
I’m not arguing against your point that fathers often get a raw deal in divorce, to the detriment of the children. What I’m arguing is that we ought to think hard about how we arrange things in the family when there’s no divorce, and that we as fathers should insist that things are arranged such that we have time and space to be involved fathers. Even if that has financial impact, and impact our careers. Yes, I have a job that gives me opportunity to spend time with my kids. That’s no accident; I made changes when we had kids to be sure I can do this. That means giving up a higher-paying job, getting out of the 70-hours-per-week fast track (and the prestige that comes with it), and it meant making an effort to support my wife in having a jobs that is at least as important as mine.
As men, we must never accept to be victims of our circumstances. We must insist that we can make the circumstances such that they support what we want from life.
Lars, In the US, fathers who are married have some parental rights.
Of course, those rights frequently include the right to pay child support to their spouse upon divorce if she bears a child during the marriage, regardless of the biological father.
Single and divorced fathers de facto and de jure have very few rights. A typical example of issues deployed fathers face is here:
A veteran of the Iraq war has had his parental rights terminated despite having in no way wronged his child or the mother. Read about it here: (http://www.boonevilledemocrat.com/articles/2011/12/09/news/news10.txt).
Lars, good point. While I’ve known several fathers who are involved in their kids’ lives without a court order regulating such involvement, I know too many who are out of touch with the people who share a roof with them. It just plain doesn’t make sense to me for it to require a divorce for parent to suddenly acquire a desire to find out whether their daughter has Bieber fever, or how long she’s been playing soccer. And when I say “parent” I mean both mothers and fathers, as I’ve known a couple mothers who couldn’t be bothered to tear away from their new interests to pay attention to their kids. But the focus needs to move away from parent’s supposed rights and toward what’s good for the kids.
Look up the term “maternal gatekeeping” and you’ll understand.
Well, yes – that can be a challenge in a relationship. But fathers should not accept this type of behaviour. As father, you owe it to your children to be there in their lives – even if that means putting your foot down and taking a conflict with their mother. If fathers do not, they’re as much to blame for the outcome as the mother.
Lars,
The problem (in divorce) is that the family courts routinely side with mothers in divorces for no greater reason than she is female.
It is hard to enforce your visitation when cops and courts won’t and the mother can have you jailed for the tiniest slight.
The way our society treats fathers today is one of the largest systemic civil rights abuses I have ever seen by government since jim crow laws.
If a family court judge were to systematically exercise bias against blacks (like most do against fathers) in every inter-racial relationship that crossed her/his desk she/he would be removed from the bench and the bar would take away her/his right to practice law.
Wow, that’s funny. I’m currently dealing with cases where the fathers have been charged with sexual abuse of their own children, and they are getting sole custody. I’ve got a case where the father beat the mother, dragged her out of the house while she was unconscious, then claimed that he should get sole custody because she “abandoned” the children while out cold. And he got it. I wonder what world you live in, and how I can visit.
Dancer says:
“Wow, that’s funny. I’m currently dealing with cases where the fathers have been charged with sexual abuse of their own children, and they are getting sole custody.”
Of course you are dear.
Strange, radfems keep trying to release “specials” and books about how abusive father are winning custody, yet every time they do Glenn Sacks debunks them and shows that in EVERY SINGLE CASE POPULARIZED by feminists the mother lost custody for various reasons all of which were reviewed by custody evaluators (many of them feminist), guardian ad litums, therapists and saw the mothers were harming the kids.
EVERY single time feminists have tried to release these movies/books court documents show that A) the father was not abusive and B) the mother lost custody for valid reasons and MANY authorities in the court process agreed she should lose custody (i.e. it wasn’t the decision of 1 bitter or sexist judge).
Nice try, but I’m not buying and neither should any fairly rational person concerned about the well-being of child care.
Why are you so frightened of the notion of fathers parenting their own children post-divorce?
ooops well-being of children, not child care.
Dancer,
I love that story! Any more fiction for us?
So Dancer, it sounds like you’re in Family Law. Well, I have a few things I’d like to discuss in person with you, so you can get some emotional insight on how broken your brand of law can leave a loving father. If Family Law is established to support the health of the child, then it should be ready to make judgements based on typical instances, not this outland story you’re sharing here. This kind of grandstanding works okay in litigation. This audience isn’t sitting on the bench in judgement, however. I can find people who can swallow swords, too, but we’re not making chef knives illegal. Nothing like hyperbole to distract us from our common desires as men and women, I suppose.
Well, someone’s got to look out for a child. A parent can’t just hand off their kid to anyone who thinks the kid is cute. If a father can’t, won’t, or is hurting the kid, a mother can’t just throw up her hands and hope that the kid(s) learn self-defense.
That’s an interesting and illustrative reaction. You’re making the assumption that the mother is protecting the child from a father who is incompetent, unable to look our for his children, or even abusive.
That’s a destructive point of view. If in a relationship the mother is (maybe unconsciously) thinking of her partner – the father of her children – as a threat to the kids, as someone she need to protect the children from, then it’s going to be extremely hard to make parenting work.
In parenting, there’s more than one way to do things. All parents are different. Parents must learn to accept that in a family, two parents will do things in different ways, and that’s fine. It is not constructive to always try to find the right way – and it is certainly not constructive if the mother is insisting that her way is the only way. That the father does things differently does not make him incompetent or mean that he cannot look after his children – it just he’s a different person. The mother must learn to relax and accept this. And the father must learn to put his foot down and insist that he is an equal parent. Yes, he should listen and learn (as should the mother), but he should refuse any “my way is the only way” ideas.
You’re correct. That, in part, is why parents have rights, instead of simply letting the state figure out whom among all and sundry would do the best job for a particular kid. Nice to see that when you write, “[a] parent can’t just hand off their kid to anyone who thinks they’re cute,” what you mean by ‘parent’ is ‘mother.’ I knew that set of fangs would be bared.
Not sure where you’re from Lars, but assuming scandinavia, I gather work weeks in the US are longer and wages are lower. People also get less holidays than those of us in western europe. Given this background its hardly surprising that fathers often don’t take their kids to dance classes: if they’re the sole earner they probably don’t have time.
Yes, I’m living in Scandinavia.
No, it’s not surprising that fathers who are the sole earners can’t take their children to dance classes. But it is (to me) surprising that fathers accept to be the sole earners, thereby robbing themselves of the chance of time with their kids. If we want to play an active role as fathers, structural changes must happen to allow us the opportunities. Those changes start with making personal choices that make us able to do what we really want.
Anyway – that’s what struck me reading the original post, that if few fathers are part of their children’s daily lives, then changes need to happen – and not just in how we handle divorce and divorced fathers.
In America, those of us who do get jobs are often overworked and poorly paid. Family supports of the sort Scandivians have (and grumble about from time to time) are more or less unheard of.
Ah, yes, the MRA brigade has arrived, who would like all that silly fuss about abused spouses and children to go away so that men can assert their rights to keep their women and children under control. And if it takes a punch, a slap, or a strangling to maintain those “rights”, well, it’s just what a man’s got to do, I suppose. Please.
Don’t tell me… you’re a “victim,” right? Empower and educate people instead of distracting from the real issues. It seems all too easy to use an already overloaded system to broker vengeance and retaliation based on some dysfunctional “woman’s playbook to revenge.” Accuse him of spousal abuse… CHECK! Accuse him of child abuse… CHECK! Accuse him of sexual abuse of a child… CHECK! When does it end? At what point does the judge or court official look back at the track record of lies and decide enough? If I cried, “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, I would go to jail for a crime. “Crying WOLF” in such ways in a custody dispute IS criminal. There are those who truly need support, who have been truly abused. My issue is with those who “use” the system to feed their own vindictiveness.
Thank you for proving my point.
Proving the point of necessary and healthy discourse to bring awareness and positive change to inadequate laws,egal system abuses andl biases? Proving that helping others to help themselves is paramount to a healthy and thriving society for our children? Then yes, you’re welcome.
You’re making horrible generalisations there. Many MRAs, myself included, absolutely recognise issues of DV (for both genders), child abuse (of and by both genders) and other “women’s” issues. The fact that those issues exist does not negate the fact that men are treated unfairly before the courts in general, and the family courts in particular.
But the fact that men get a raw deal doesn’t negate the fact that women, too, get a raw deal in family courts. Only those with a particular agenda try to spin it like family court is some sort of paradise for women. And I’m sorry, but this anti-DV MRA crowd is a new one. The ones I’ve encountered only trot out DV when they want to prove that women are horrible parents. I think that sort should probably hold out until artificial wombs become available, so they can breed without having to deal with the horror of a mother.
The divorce process stinks. The marriage is over, that’s usually a sad realization. Lawyers get involved and advocate for their clients. Too often the conflicts between the spouses escalate because of the attorneys’ ideas on who deserves what. A bad judge makes things worse. Divorce frequently brings out the worst in both parties.
My ex got on a plane for Europe where she was going to “study” for a month. A week later she called and said she wasn’t coming back. Soon after that her lawyer contacted me and the madness began. When all was said and done she got 50% of everything and eight years of alimony. I got sole physical custody of the kids. She has contributed nothing in the past eleven years. There are bad dads and bad moms. Every case is different and courts need to take that into account.
“But the fact that men get a raw deal doesn’t negate the fact that women, too, get a raw deal in family courts”
- HAHA! But you have no stats to support this claim? Didn’t think so.
Hey, nothing like a little invective to lift the caliber of the discussion. The old “artificial womb” brigade has arrived, right? We could work to keep this on the level of people who want to resolve something instead of scooping up the spitballs.
Dancer says:
“Ah, yes, the MRA brigade has arrived, who would like all that silly fuss about abused spouses and children to go away”
According to the 2006 Child Maltreatment study mothers commit 70% of parental child abuse (even when you roll in sex abuse).
And yet mothers win sole physical custody 80% to fathers 6%.
You can sling slurs all day long, but the facts do not lie.
“The best interests of the child” is code for “what momma wants momma gets”.
There are dozens of studies which show children fare best with constant involvement from loving fit fathers. Yet, the law is set up that fathers parental rights are doled out at the whims of the mother.
If a vengeful mother so wishes it she can legally forcibly remove the father from the children’s lives.
This is simply wrong and injustice. Fathers trying to parent their children is NOT enforcing domination or abuse.
Quit whining. Men literally get away with murdering women and children, and you want the murderer to get sole custody? Whatever.
“Men literally get away with murdering women and children, and you want the murderer to get sole custody?”
Sole custody of whom? The dead children? Who would he have joint custody with? The dead mother?
As for “literally” getting away with murder, I have four words for you: Susan Smith, Andrea Yates.
As for getting custody, two words: Mary Winkler.
-Jut
Dancer says:
“Quit whining”
Are you scared Dancer? Are you scared of fathers having parental rights?
Wow! The murder wants custody of the just murdered children? Nice logic, idiot.
Please don’t call people idiots. Call out the funky logic, call out the grammar, but leave the person out of it?
And so now we’re down to “whatever.” Not the most compassionate of ideas. I think the subject of parenting deserves a higher level of respect than Valley-speak.
You’re in the wrong line of work, Dancer. surely some caricaturist at Fisherman’s Wharf needs help.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart; when I was 2-1/2, my mother left my father (at that time, my younger sister was a year old, and my youngest sis was in-utero). My father would have cut off his right arm to have been able to have ANY part of custody of his kids, but he was stationed in Turkey at the time…not an option. My mother didn’t want to stay married, and moved back to the U.S. He had no say in the matter. I am now married to the love of my life, who lost his children when his ex decided she not only didn’t want to be married any longer, but decided to move out of state with his three kids. My husband didn’t have the financial (or, frankly, the emotional) resources to fight her move. Fathers care more than many women give them credit for; women can be powerful adversaries, and for many men, it goes against their nature to battle the woman they (have) loved.
One of the biggest issues for me, as a single father (since 2004) has been the complete lack of empathy at work when it comes to my responsibilities to my kids. I get A LOT of pushback from my bosses whenever family obligations come up–things like doctors appointments, extracurriculars, sick days, etc. And yet, at the same time, when female coworkers need to take time off for such things, these same managers are extremely accomodating and understanding. I’ve made it work over the years, because I really have no choice, but I’m always amazed at the complete lack of understanding as to why a father would need to take time off to take care of the kids.
This isn’t the case with my current employer, they are very understanding, but at my previous job, a school of all places, my need to take personal time to take my son to the doctors, go to soccer games, and so on, was greeted with rolled eyes and skepticism by some, largely, by the male administration. The dissection of the psychology behind this reaction would be interesting and probably complicated, but worth trying. Thank you all for this conversation.
I have been separated for a little over a year. I was a stay-at-home mom, and he was a non-present husband/father/human being except when he wanted to be around to criticize, and control, or wanted sex.
When I moved out I figured he wouldn’t know the first thing about being a primary care-giver to the children, and that I would take them with me, and he would see them two nights a week and every other weekend; more effort than he’d put into them in their lives to this point.
He insisted, no, how could I think this, he absolutely had to share custody, he needed to see them more often (although he’d have actually seen them each week/more often in the other arrangement) so we arranged to alternate one week, and one week. We live in the same community, close by.
I hoped that with my ex insisting on shared custody, that he might make an effort to be there in their lives. He did at first. He did the second I told him I wasn’t reconciling; suddenly he was taking them for bike rides, out for dinner etc.
My lawyer told me that the only reason he (my ex) would insist on shared custody is because he didn’t want to have to pay child support. He told me to keep a log of visits, that it would probably drop off, and he would stop showing up. That hasn’t happened, or at least not exactly like that.
Within 6 months of me moving out he found himself a girlfriend and has all but moved her into his place, where she cares for the kids. He does too sometimes, but he has her (at least part of the time) taking them to daycare, picking them up, bathing them, getting up with them in the night when they are sick, etc. Shoved her right into their lives, as he makes a slow but inevitable exit to abandoning them in plain sight.
It’s just clear to me that he didn’t actually want the responsibility of being a father 50% of the time, or maybe he thought he did until he realized how much work being a parent is.
Meanwhile, my lawyer has told me that because we already have this arrangement a custody battle would be in vain, because the courts are not likely to change the arrangement as it is. And my ex is dragging his feet through the process of the divorce all the while sending messages through my children that he and his girlfriend are going to get married.
I really wished for a 50% of the time dad for my kids, both when I was married, and in separation (i.e. each parent 50%-50%). Some positives in separation at least, are that in the past year he actually took his vacation time to spend time with the kids (when before he’d just accumulate it until he “had” to take a week or two that wouldn’t carry over), but I wonder if that will last, as it only took him 6 months to find a willing partner to dump his responsibility on.
Is this just a lesson that I have to watch my kids learn about the nature of their dad; are they still better off in this arrangement, where they go to his house 50% of the time, but as for being parented by him 50% of the time, it’s not happening. My feeling is that they are watching him use this woman as free childcare. What happens when she realizes it?
Or would they have been better off being with me and seeing him a couple of nights a week and every other weekend (which actually works out to almost half time for him), when he has the energy to pay attention to them?
I applaud, encourage, and endorse any man who actually fathers their children equally (does that mean something different to a man than it does to a woman?), it’s just not the case in my experience, even when the man insists upon it.
I hate to step in like this, but as someone who has a step-child I resent the implication above that if a man re-partners, and his new partner helps out with some of the domestic and familial responsibilities that somehow he is no longer deserving of custody of his children. In our house we have 50-50, plus we pay child support (because there are differential incomes between the two households), and my partner is as active a dad as they come (both before and after divorce)….. and yet you know, sometimes it just works better for me to take care of things like driving (my husband doesn’t drive) my step-daughter around, or helping her with particular projects, or taking her shopping for clothes. That doesn’t make my partner a bad father, and the reality is – you *want* that girlfriend who is about to become stepmother to bond with your children and for them to have a positive relationship with her. Otherwise she is just some weird roommate who sleeps with Dad. I know it’s all very sudden in that your separation was only a year ago, but objecting to the fact that the father has a new partner who helps him with the kids really isn’t fair. You do not know the situation in their household. You do not know the nature of the relationship she has with the kids. The reason this irks me? My partner’s ex made many of the same accusations about me when my partner and I met (and worse too), often angry (and still is) when I take on even minor helping roles. It’s really not fair to any of us to be judged like that all the time – and the worst part? The kids end up feeling divided about developing feelings for their step-mom and that just causes a lot of stress.
Four years into it, we’re working things out, but that judgement about a potential step-parent and whether or not that entitles your ex to 50-50 – that just is something you need to let go.
Well put. That new woman (or man) in your ex’s life is just a fact of life. He or she will be family to your children. You want it to work, if nothing else that for their sake.
My objection is not to him having a new partner, nor to a new partner wanting to be involved in their lives. My objection/concern is that he is setting her up to do ALL of the parenting while he makes another exit from their lives. That he will be not present yet again. When the new partner figures this out she will resent my kids. I have a stepmother who ended up being the primary care giver when my dad fought for custody from my mom, I lived it. It does a number to a kid’s self-esteem to feel like a burden, to be told that people don’t actually like spending time with them, they just do it because they have to.
I think it would have been good for his relationship with the kids to have spent more time with them on his own, to learn how to be a dad, to introduce the partner gradually, rather than introduce her one weekend, and having her staying overnight while the kids are there the very next.
My wish is that he would have wanted to be a 50% father, but I guess a tiger doesn’t change his stripes.
I mean a 50% parent, 100% father.
I can’t speak about the specifics of your situation – it sounds like your ex is of the there-but-absent kind. However, I will say that parenting is to me by it’s nature something you share. If I was to divorce and then find another partner, I would be sharing parenting with that new partner. The new partner would be fully part of the family, so any notion that “these are my children, I have to do all of the parenting” wouldn’t wok. But then, I can’t imagine finding another partner *and* get to the stage where that partner is considered family (also with the children) in just 6 months.
Anyway – I don’t think it’s reasonable or logical if you expect your ex to “do the parenting himself” and not involve his new partner. If they’re a new family now, it’s only natural that they share.
As for the last question – why would fathering my children mean something else to me than to a woman? Unless, of course, that woman want to micro-manage; I’ve seen situation where women wanted to control in detail how their partner do parenting, and even want to continue to do that after a breakup. That wont work – after all, it’s not really shared parenting, it’s the woman doing all the parenting.
Bingo Lars! The notion of micro-management of the other’s parenting is of BIG concern and was one of the catalysts separating our relationship. It didn’t work IN marriage and it certainly will not work after separation and divorce. However, with the conditions encountered with the staid, “every other weekend” father schedule, despite my wish for 50-50 parenting compounds the issues.
It is worth mentioning that I too was considered an “absentee father” by my ex-wife. This was mostly due to my responsibility to provide for our six children and her full-time mothering, (which is an AWESOME opportunity if a family can support it). However, it is completely wrong to not honor a fit and loving father’s request; especially if he realizes how he has not put proper priorities of family first over work needs. It’s almost as if one strike you’re out! The hope is everyone to learn from their mistakes, but to punish someone forevermore for this is not forgiveness and working in the beat interests of your children.
Strong, you’ve done the right thing by giving the 50-50 co-parenting a shot. If your ex fails to be present, then it will be a hard lesson for HIM to learn and certainly not yours to own. Just my $0.02.
This is a fantastic thread and thank you all for being candid and willing to share.
I hate to say this – but stay at home mom with six kids doesn’t sound like it’s turned out to be an awesome opportunity for your or your family. It has distanced you from your kids (because you spent a lot of time out of the home providing for them financially), it has certainly stalled your ex-wife’s earning potential (I don’t know what kindof a career she had before marriage/kids – but if she had one it’s over now), and in the end your children have been subjected to bitterness on both sides (no matter how you try to keep it out of your relationship with them it seeps through – esp. where money is concerned).
Isn’t 50-50 just that which we should be striving for in our relationships? And by that I mean with childcare, with economic support, with household tasks. 50-50 on everything? If it’s possible for both partners to work part time so that they can each have an equal opportunity to be there with the kids at different times? Yes, that might mean daycare some of the time when schedules don’t work – but it also means that each parent gets a break from the kids (going to work is a break from home life that stay at home parents don’t get), and each parents gets a break from working 40-60 hours a week (which is something the financially-supporting partner doesn’t get in a single-earner household).
Ultimately I can’t see that the one person stay at home/one person works scenario really works for most people – and when it does end in acrimonius divorce, it makes one person continually dependent on the other financially which impedes that other person from moving on in their life and setting up a new household.
I think a lot of the complaints that I’ve read in this thread about the family court system have to do with the whole nuclear family structure as its promoted in North America – that men shouldn’t be involved with their kids (and esp not their girl children), that biological mothers are always the best caregivers in a separation, that a single household is more stable than having two households, that men should always provide financially if there must be a choice, that there is something laudable in 70-hour workweeks that take one away from home etc.
I do understand that some families work better with one stay-at-home parent but I bet that divorce statistics don’t bear out that those families are any more likely to succeed at staying together than with two working parents, or two part-time working parents.
(pls. ignore the grammar and spelling errors above, my brain is stuck in early morning still!)
I consider him to be an absentee father, not because he was working, but because when he was home, he wasn’t home, not involved, did nothing but watch me take care of the kids, or disappear into the tv, computer, and leave me alone with them. Sometimes he took himself out to a movie on the way home from work instead of coming home.
If I wanted to go out to have some time to myself (as my job was/is a 24-7 job, with little to no help from him) he’d make me feel guilty about not spending “family” time when he came home (and I rarely went out). But I don’t know what “family time” was to him considering he never engaged with the family. I felt like a single parent, with the addition of his demands for my attention (read: sex) heaped on top, so I thought, I don’t need him to provide a paycheque, I can do that myself, and if that is all that he represents then what am I doing here?
I work outside of the home now too, I was at home for 5 years, had no career, now have started in an industry that is new to me. My kids go to daycare, and although their days are long there, I don’t consider myself to be absentee because I’m working, nor if it was only about him working would I consider him an absentee dad. He was just absent.
Dancer says:
December 21, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Quit whining. Men literally get away with murdering women and children, and you want the murderer to get sole custody? Whatever.
—————————————
Women are as violent as men.
What a ridiculous comment ignoring the fact, that children are more frequently mistreated by women than by men. – Boys are more frequently mistreated than girls.
Women are getting away with murdering their husband and children.
Men are usually sentenced to much much longer jail terms than women for identical crimes.
I wonder how class enters into this. I see a lot of men on the playground during the week in my mostly working class neighborhood, and I’ve never noticed mothers looking at them oddly. Some of them are divorced, some never married and some are with the kids’ mothers, perhaps working second shift so they can share child care.
I’ve talked to some of these guys from my blog, and they never say they feel strange about watching the kids–I actually asked one of them about this and he didn’t seem to have ever thought that people might see his child care duties as unusual. (This guy, who has full custody of his kids, if you’re interested in one anecdotal story: http://open.salon.com/blog/livia_gershon/2011/09/14/the_single_dad)
I think one of the problems when it comes to fathers and parenting is that even among people that say they want equal parenting the definition of equal parenting ends up becoming “as long the mom is not getting the short end of the stick” rather than making sure both parents get a fair shake.
I am a single dad 2 girls 5 and 6 doing well me at home for them and in the courts for a lot of that time , the relative authorities failed to protect the children closed the file mother turned on that expert opinion to remove them from me forever meanwhile the abuse continued step brother ..
Against all odds I won the children after sacking the lawyer- we relocated , after three years of ballet make up dressing and joy we started out again in a country town only to be told I was excluded backstage from the yearly finale .
The happiness from that event and thousands of dollars was removed as a loving parent I was ashamed to be treated so horrendously as they do their show without my encouragement I sit here at home worried because they wanted me to be there .
I feel very sad …
And for you as well.
Happy Holidays, and Joyous New Year!