| Whose
war is it, anyway?
First
and foremost, it's important to take into account that the vast
majority of divorced or never-married parents -- somewhere between
75 and 90 percent -- settle on custodial arrangements without resorting
to costly and acrimonious court battles. Despite the amount of media
attention they've managed to attract, proponents of the father's
rights movement represent a minority of divorced dads. Naturally,
how these men differ from all the other divorced and separated fathers
who aren't kicking up such a fuss is the first question that pops
into my mind. It may well be that some of these dads have been treated
unfairly by the courts, although research suggest that when fathers
seek primary or joint custody of their children, they often prevail
(and as noted earlier, a history of spousal abuse does not appear
to be a strong deterrent to awarding shared custody in these cases).
With that in mind, there
seems to be a distinct possibility that the circumstances fueling
the grief and outrage of father's rights activists are related to
personality factors rather than systemic ones. In a
methodical evaluation of factors that predispose couples to high
conflict divorce, Janet R. Johnston, co-author of Impasses
of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Family Conflict (1999), found that "separation engendered conflicts (the humiliation
inherent in rejection, the grief associated with loss, and the overall
helplessness in response to assaultive life changes) interact with
vulnerabilities in the character structure of some divorcing individuals,
making them especially prone to unresolved hostility and ongoing
disputes." Johnston also found strong evidence that "In
divorces marked by ongoing disputes over the custody and care of
children, both inside and outside the court, there is often a history
of domestic violence in the family and a likelihood that the violence
will continue after the separation."
A recent survey of 800
family law judges in major U.S. cities found that judges cite "parents'
ability to cooperate and communicate, both parents being involved
in the child's life, geographic proximity, parental agreement and
parental stability" as the top five reasons they would order
joint custody. Judges also reported that lack of parental cooperation
and communication was near the top of their list of reasons for
awarding sole custody. A 1998 study of mothers' custodial preferences
also found that mothers were more likely to favor joint custody
over sole maternal custody when they were experiencing low-levels
of conflict with their former spouse, low levels of anger/hurt over
the divorce, had few visitation problems and considered their ex-husbands
competent parents.
Given that marriages
rarely break up because both spouses' need for intimacy is being
met and everyone is getting along fabulously well, it's something
of a no-brainer to surmise that some, if not most, of the couples
who become embroiled in protracted custody and visitation disputes
simply aren't capable of sustaining the kind of non-adversarial
relationship that's necessary for effective co-parenting after divorce.
As Don E. Stott, a family court mediator in California, wrote in
a 2002 article for the American Journal of Family Law,
"A significant number of child custody disputes are indirectly
a result of the biological parents simply not liking each other.
Each holds the other totally responsible for the failed relationship
and feels the other should be punished by any means available. Although
the vendetta against the other parent has a negative effect on the
relationship of the children, the energy expelled to 'get' the other
parent can be tremendous." Stott also estimated that 65 percent
of the custody disputes he mediated were related to "one or
both parents being remarried and were directed, at least partially,
by the new spouse." According to Stott, the desire of one parent
to move to a new city or state also lands divorced parents in conflict
mediation. One of the most disturbing factors of these entrenched
custody wars, he remarked, "is that parents spend thousands
of dollars on attorneys, expert witnesses, and court costs, each
motivated by their anger toward the other parent -- funds that could
be better spent on raising the children."
This is not to dismiss
the real distress non-custodial fathers may feel due to separation
from their children. The tales of woe father's rights advocates
recount tend to be maudlin and somewhat suspect -- for example, one
man describes the two year-old son he's never met as "the
love of my life" (one might imagine that actually living
with a two year-old for any length of time would temper his boundless
affection). And what proportion of these fathers' sense of injustice is
triggered by the emotional deprivations of non-custodial parenting
and how much is motivated by the presumption of male entitlement
and a desire to control the lives of their ex-wives and children
is, in most cases, impossible to discern. (Some groups, including
Fathers 4 Justice, actively discourage members from using sexist
language or "personal attacks" that might make the father's
crusade look bad.) But I think it would be a mistake to assume the
anguish these men report is simply a ploy to gain sympathy for their
cause.
I've seen numerous testimonials
of father's rights activists' torment over not having a more constant
role in their children's daily lives -- and frankly, I don't buy
it. Anyone who's been an active caregiver knows that, emotionally
speaking, life with children is a mixed bag. Not to mention, you
can find an equal number of heartrending stories from mothers who
report they've been screwed over by abusive ex-husbands who used
the "friendly parent" strategy -- speaking and acting
before the court as if they were the more reasonable and accommodating
parent in the dispute -- to gain shared custody. But it did strike
me that when these angry men express the tenderness of their feelings
for their children, it sounds as if they're new to the experience
of being madly in love.
Maybe this isn't as far
fetched as it sounds. A recent article by Sean Elder in Psychology
Today suggests that men today feel "blindsided" by
the escalating emotional demands of egalitarian marriage ("The
Emperor's New Woes," April/May 2005). "Men have come
to accept -- even celebrate -- their wives' careers and paycheck
while learning, step-by-step, how to bathe the baby and baste the
turkey," Elder writes. (Note to S.E.: There's no such thing
as maternal instinct -- women learn these things "step-by-step"
too, big guy.) But in an age where it's no longer enough for a husband
and father to be a good breadwinner, some men are floundering as
they try to figure out how to "do" intimacy. In Edler’s
words, the "job description" of being a good husband and
father "has expanded to include listening and that least measurable
of skills, empathizing. Today, not cheating on your wife or beating
your kids doesn't make you a good husband and father." Men,
Elder notes, "did not ask to have their roles redefined."
But while some fellows may be lagging in their interest and ability
to make conscious connections with their wives, Elder reports that
"men have quickly become masters at another kind of intimacy:
fatherhood."
Many contemporary fathers
feel they are an upgrade from the previous version. Warm, loving,
generous fathers are lionized in the culture rather than scorned,
points out Terry Real [a Boston-area psychotherapist specializing
in men's relational issues]. "The current generation of men
is much better as fathers than their fathers were," he says,
"but it's not clear to me that we're much better husbands
than our fathers were." The difference is that much less
risk is involved in being vulnerable or intimate with your child
than there is with your mate. The relationship of parent and child
is not that of equals, and while we have a lot of expectations
of our children, we generally don't look to them for emotional
fulfillment.
This perspective might
explain why father's rights activists are so bitterly resolute in
their quest for "justice," but it's doesn't excuse their
possessive and bullying behavior. Nor does it imply that the fundamental
problem facing the men crusading for father's rights is the dissolution
of traditional gender roles. To the contrary, all available evidence
suggests that the majority of fathers are able to navigate new expectations
of married and divorced life without leaving so much ill will in
their wake. And needless to say, mothers can also play a role in
keeping post-divorce antagonism alive. But the whole truth of the
alleged dilemma of non-custodial fathers seems far more complicated
by personal characteristics than those who uphold their rights are
prepared to acknowledge. My impression is that for many -- if not
most -- of these disaffected dads, the critical adjustment needs
to take place at the individual level, not a legislative one. In
any event, it's unlikely the damaged hearts of these displaced patriarchs
can be repaired by imposing joint custody on their children's browbeaten
mothers -- however sweet the taste of victory.
mmo : june 2005
|
