Did you know that: (1) our child support guidelines rely on a formula to calculate all the levels of child support? (2) that the child support formula assumes that the paying parent has NO access, when the access parent's actual access can be up to 40%? (3) that the assumption of no access result in more than doubling all the levels of child support for the average access parent? (4) that the assumption was labelled as "legislative fiction” by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada on November 10, 2005? (5) that even a paying parent with an access of 40% or more is treated unfairly by our child support guidelines?
If you want to know more about these and other problems with our child support guidelines, read "Child Support Guidelines, 1997 to 2007, First decade of fiction"
Link to free copy of on line book
Showing posts with label Child Custody. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Child Custody. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
CHILD VISITATION INTERFERENCE IN DIVORCE
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, VOL. 14. NO. 8, pp. 737-742, 1994
CHILD VISITATION INTERFERENCE IN DIVORCE
IRA DANIEL TURKAT, PH.D.
Florida Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of Medicine
ABSTRACT. Divorce related child visitation interference is a national problem, affecting six million children. Such interference may be acute or may represent chronic disorders, such as Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. In certain cases, visitation interference is accompanied by vicious behaviors toward the noncustodial parent, including violence and violations of law. The present paper describes the problem of child visitation interference, associated clinical syndromes, and attributes of the legal system that perpetuate the problem. Absence of scientific research devalues psychological input to the courtroom. It is hoped that the present paper will contribute to the development of a body of scientific literature in this area.
In recent years, the divorce rate has been similar to the rate of new marriages. Approximately one million divorces occur each year in the United States alone. The children involved in marital dissolution are commonly acknowledged as a vulnerable group (Hetherington & Arasteh, 1988). As parents often fight over custody and visitation, the demands placed on these children increase significantly.
To aid in the decision regarding custody and visitation, each state has developed guidelines for legal proceedings. Generally, these guidelines reflect the best interest of the child principle (Keane, 1990). It is assumed that frequent visitation with the noncustodial parent is an important right to both parent and offspring (Hodges, 1991). The overwhelming majority of custodial parents are female.
Unfortunately, the desire for ongoing and liberal visitation between child and nonresidential parent has frequently not kept pace with actual practices. The Children's Rights Council (1994) estimates that six million children in the United States have their visitation interfered with by the custodial parents. Two surveys support the range of this problem. Arditti (1992) reports that approximately 50% of divorced fathers relate that their ex-wife has interfered with visitation with their offspring. Similarly, approximately 40% of custodial mothers admit denying their ex-husband visitation in order to punish him (Kressel, 1985). In some cases, visitation interference has been associated with malicious unlawful acts against the father of such children (Turkat, in press). On rare occasions, a parent may actually kidnap the child.
The problem of child visitation interference has yet to be adequately addressed in the national media. Relatedly, there is an absence of research on the nature of child visitation interference, its etiology, or treatment. The purpose of the present paper is to raise awareness of the child visitation interference problem among psychologists. The first part of this article will describe some of the common types of child visitation interference situations that exist. The second part of the manuscript will discuss associated difficulties in handling this problem in the legal system.
TYPES OF VISITATION INTERFERENCE
Before discussing specific types of visitation interference, it is important first to describe "noninterference." Here, a child's patents divorce but the child is not estranged from either parent. The residential parent (typically the mother) encourages the child and the nonresidential parent to interact frequently and to be fully involved in each other's lives. The noninterference situation usually involves joint custody, which functionally results in joint decision-making by the parents in regard to their offspring. The child visits frequently with the nonresidential parent, speaks on the phone with the parent whenever needed or desired, and enjoys the benefit of that parent's involvement in school, extracurricular, religious, and other activities. State laws, reflecting the best interest of the child principle envision the noninterference situation in divorce involving children.
Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that millions of children and parents are suffering from the problem of child visitation interference. From the clinical and legal literature, there appear to be at least three types of situations related to child visitation interference: (1) acute interference; (2) Parental Alienation Syndrome (Gardner, 1987); and (3) Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome (Turkat in press).
ACUTE INTERFERENCE
The custodial parent who engages in acute interference has no systematic or devious plan for ongoing disruption of the relationship between child and nonresidential parent. Rather, the custodial parent intermittently or transiently denies visitation either through direct action (e.g., informing the nonresidential parent that his or her visitation is being denied) or passively (e.g., the nonresidential parent arrives to meet with his or her child and neither the custodial parent or the child are at home). Such instances of child visitation interference are typically associated with anger at the nonresidential parent for some matter (e.g. lack of payment of child support), poor advice by a friend, or other reasons (e.g. abusive behavior by the father toward the custodial mother -- see Shepard, 1992).
PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
In certain cases, child visitation interference is a direct result of a custodial parent suffering from a Parental Alienation Syndrome (Gardner, 1987, 1989). Here, the custodial parent engages in a variety of direct and indirect methods designed to alienate the child from his or her nonresidential parent. The result is that the child becomes preoccupied with unjustified criticism and hatred of the nonresidential parent.
Gardner (1989) has outlined four factors that he believes contributes to the development of Parental Alienation Syndrome. These include: (1) brainwashing, (2) subtle and unconscious parental programming, (3) factors arising within the child, and (4) situational factors.
Gardner (1989) uses the term brainwashing to refer to "...conscious acts of programming the child against the other parent" (p. 233). Examples include accusing the father of being an "adulterer" and "abandoner." Typically, the father is unjustifiably accused of providing too little money, sometimes to the point that the mother misleads her children to believe that terrible things will happen to them. When the father leaves the home, the mother may make statements such as, "your father has abandoned us," to teach the child that the rejection extends not only to the mother but to the offspring. Minor negative attributes of the father are exaggerated greatly. For example, the father who occasionally has an afterdinner drink is described as an alcoholic. Sarcastic comments are common, including statements to the child such as, "your wonderful generous father is finally going to spend a few dollars and take you to the movies!"
More subtle attempts to program the child against the nonresidential parent include comments such as, "there are things I could say about your father that would make your hair stand on end, but I'm not the kind of person who criticizes a parent to his children" (Gardner, 1989, p. 239). Clearly, statements such as this create much negative emotion in the child. In regard to visitation, the child in such a home becomes astutely aware of the mother's desire for the child to hate the father. To gain her acceptance, the child makes statements suggesting uncertainty or lack of desire to visit with the nonresidential parent. The mother suffering from Parental Alienation Syndrome may act in a "neutral" manner by communicating to the child that it is the child's decision whether or not to visit with the nonresidential parent. This "neutrality maneuver" helps to further alienate the father from his offspring by passively discouraging visitation; the child knows not to express desire to visit the "hated" parent.
Engendering guilt in the offspring is another common maneuver. A child who desires visitation with the father might be told, "how can you leave your poor old mother!" (Gardner, 1989, p. 241).
In regard to factors arising within the child, Gardner notes that the child's predivorce psychological bond with the residential parent is typically stronger than that with the nonresidential parent. Fearing potential abandonment from the residential parent, the child is more prone to join the mother in the parental alienation attempt. Gardner also believes that psychodynamic factors such as reaction formation and oedipal attributes sometimes are contributing factors to the development of alienation.
Finally, a variety of situational factors contribute to the development of the syndrome as well. For example, a child who views a sibling being punished for having expressed positive feelings towards the father will learn quickly not to express such feelings openly. A child who observes the mother verbally abuse the father may declare emotional preference for the mother for self-protection purposes.
Gardner notes that the Parental Alienation Syndrome varies in degree from case to case. While the overwhelming majority of adult cases are female, he believes that 90% of all custody battles reveal some aspects of the Parental Alienation Syndrome.
DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME
Some cases of chronic visitation interference go beyond attempts at alienating a child from a parent. Turkat (in press) has reported on cases where the divorcing wife has attempted to get her divorcing or divorced husband fired from work, investigated for (falsely alleged) sexual abuse, publicly ridiculed, or physically harmed. From a variety of clinical and legal cases, Turkat (in press) has identified the Divorce related Malicious Mother Syndrome. The specific criteria for this disorder can be seen in Figure 1.
The disorder is characterized by the mother: (1) attempting to unjustifiably punish her divorcing husband; (2) interfering with the father's visitation and access to the child; and (3) engaging in a variety of malicious acts towards the husband, including lying and violations of law.
Turkat (in press) provides some dramatic examples of the kind of behavior engaged in by individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome: burning down the house of the ex-husband; falsely accusing the father of sexual abuse; manipulating mental health professionals to testify in court that the divorcing husband is in need of therapy (even when the mental health professional has never met the father); manipulating a secretary at a school to participate in kidnapping the child; informing her offspring that their father is not really their father; telling the father's boss, at his work location, that the father has abused his children; breaking into the residence of her divorcing husband and stealing important papers; and one woman who intentionally drove her car into the house of her divorced husband.
Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is a serious disorder. Turkat (in press) has noted that such individuals rarely see themselves as having a problem, are adept at manipulating others in the campaign against the father, and are skilled fabricators. The classification, etiology, and treatment of such cases is unknown.
FIGURE 1. Diagnostic criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. (Adapted from Turkat, in press, with permission of the publisher, Plenum Publishing, New York.)
A mother who unjustifiably punishes her divorcing or divorced husband by:
Attempting to alienate their mutual child(ren) from the father
Involving others in malicious actions against the father
Engaging in excessive litigation
The mother specifically attempts to deny her child(ren):
Regular uninterrupted visitation with the father
Uninhibited telephone access to the father
Paternal participation in the child(ren)'s school life and extracurricular activities
The pattern is pervasive and includes malicious acts towards the husband including:
Lying to the children
Lying to others
Violations of law
The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder although a separate mental disorder may coexist.
VISITATION INTERFERENCE AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The reader unfamiliar with divorce and custody proceedings may be perplexed as to why behaviors such as the ones cited above are permitted. Technically, they are not permitted. However, from a practical perspective, there is little that can be done to prevent such actions.
The legal system has a variety of attributes that unfortunately help to perpetuate child visitation interference by a parent who is dedicated to such interference. For example, most judges will demonstrate significant patience and "bend over backwards" to allow each side to adequately present the case at it's own pace. Unfortunately, the benefit of giving everyone his/her "day in court" slows the process considerably. Attorneys who wish to stall, postpone, or delay hearings have little difficulty doing so in most cares. Often, these are deliberate tactics utilized in a custody battle. Thus, a parent who might be charged with visitation interference may not have to appear before the judge on the issue for months after the fact.
An additional complicating factor is the expense. Attorney fees can run as high as $300 per hour or more. Few individuals can afford repeated appearances in court as the bills mount exorbitantly. This proves especially straining to a family that must now divide it's income and assets into two separate households.
A further complicating factor is that the court system can be powerfully manipulated by a good liar (Snyder, 1986). Research shows that detection of fabrication is generally poor (Ekman & O'Sullivan, 1991), and this provides an additional problem when it comes to child visitation interference. For example, a father who accuses the other parent of interfering with visitation may find that the other parent not only denies such interference but accuses the nonresidential parent of not appearing at designated visitation times. As there are typically no witnesses, the court is left in a quandary. Relatedly, a parent who has continually interfered with visitation may state in the courtroom that he or she will comply with the nonresidential parent's visitation request. Immediately following the hearing, the custodial parent returns to the visitation interference pattern, knowing that months may go by before a return to court.
An additional difficulty is that there is often a lack of potent consequences for custodial parents who engage in child visitation interference. A mother who interferes with visitation typically will be warned by the judge that she will be held in contempt of court. Unfortunately, this does not really amount to much more than merely "slapping her wrists." Rarely are custodial parents who interfere with child visitation imprisoned, penalized financially, or forced to lose primary residential custody of the children. As such, many parents who are aware of the court's ineffectiveness take full advantage. It should be noted that the judicial system is well aware of its own inadequacies in this area (see the Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).
In recent years, the courts have facilitated growth of mediation either by mental health professionals or by attorneys as an alternative to the adversarial process of the courtroom. Unfortunately, it only takes one unreasonable or uncooperative parent to sabotage the mediation effort. The parent who utters words of cooperation and then violates these words by actions outside of the mediation room frustrates the process.
Finally, when mental health experts are asked to provide input to the court on visitation matters, the absence of sound scientific research findings hampers the contributions that such experts can make. Accordingly, judges often receive widely varying opinions which sometimes serves to depreciate the value of mental health input in the courtroom. At times, the mental health "expert" is in fact, incompetent (Turkat, 1993).
CONCLUSION
Each year millions of children are denied visitation with their nonresidential parent. Little is known about the nature of such interference, the causes of such interference, or how to treat such interference. Until this issue becomes the focus of scientific research, it would appear that psychologist input into the courtroom is significantly compromised. Given that millions of individuals are suffering, it behooves the profession to begin to address this important and perplexing problem.
REFERENCES
Arditti, J. A. (1992). Factors relating to custody, visitation, and child support for divorced fathers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17, 23-42.
Children's Rights Council. (1994). Annual convention brochure. Washington, DC: Author.
Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Georgia State University Law Review, 8, 539-807.
Ekman. P, & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar! American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.
Gardner, R. A. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R. A. (1989). Family evaluation in child custody mediations, arbitration and litigation. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Hetherington, E. M., & Arasteh, J. D. (Eds.) (1988). Impact of divorce, single parenting and step-parenting on children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hodges, W. F. (1991). Interventions for children of divorce (2nd. ed.) New York: John Wiley.
Keane, G. (1990). Florida divorce handbook. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press.
Kressel, K. (1985). The process of divorce. New York: Basic Books.
Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welfare, 71, 357-367.
Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1287-1289.
Turkat, I. D. (1993). Questioning the mental health expert's custody report. American Journal of Family Law, 7, 175-179.
Turkat, I. D. (in press). Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Journal of Family Violence.
Correspondence should be addressed to Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD, Florida Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of Medicine, 1225 Avenida Del Circo, Venice, FL 34285.
PDF version
CHILD VISITATION INTERFERENCE IN DIVORCE
IRA DANIEL TURKAT, PH.D.
Florida Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of Medicine
ABSTRACT. Divorce related child visitation interference is a national problem, affecting six million children. Such interference may be acute or may represent chronic disorders, such as Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. In certain cases, visitation interference is accompanied by vicious behaviors toward the noncustodial parent, including violence and violations of law. The present paper describes the problem of child visitation interference, associated clinical syndromes, and attributes of the legal system that perpetuate the problem. Absence of scientific research devalues psychological input to the courtroom. It is hoped that the present paper will contribute to the development of a body of scientific literature in this area.
In recent years, the divorce rate has been similar to the rate of new marriages. Approximately one million divorces occur each year in the United States alone. The children involved in marital dissolution are commonly acknowledged as a vulnerable group (Hetherington & Arasteh, 1988). As parents often fight over custody and visitation, the demands placed on these children increase significantly.
To aid in the decision regarding custody and visitation, each state has developed guidelines for legal proceedings. Generally, these guidelines reflect the best interest of the child principle (Keane, 1990). It is assumed that frequent visitation with the noncustodial parent is an important right to both parent and offspring (Hodges, 1991). The overwhelming majority of custodial parents are female.
Unfortunately, the desire for ongoing and liberal visitation between child and nonresidential parent has frequently not kept pace with actual practices. The Children's Rights Council (1994) estimates that six million children in the United States have their visitation interfered with by the custodial parents. Two surveys support the range of this problem. Arditti (1992) reports that approximately 50% of divorced fathers relate that their ex-wife has interfered with visitation with their offspring. Similarly, approximately 40% of custodial mothers admit denying their ex-husband visitation in order to punish him (Kressel, 1985). In some cases, visitation interference has been associated with malicious unlawful acts against the father of such children (Turkat, in press). On rare occasions, a parent may actually kidnap the child.
The problem of child visitation interference has yet to be adequately addressed in the national media. Relatedly, there is an absence of research on the nature of child visitation interference, its etiology, or treatment. The purpose of the present paper is to raise awareness of the child visitation interference problem among psychologists. The first part of this article will describe some of the common types of child visitation interference situations that exist. The second part of the manuscript will discuss associated difficulties in handling this problem in the legal system.
TYPES OF VISITATION INTERFERENCE
Before discussing specific types of visitation interference, it is important first to describe "noninterference." Here, a child's patents divorce but the child is not estranged from either parent. The residential parent (typically the mother) encourages the child and the nonresidential parent to interact frequently and to be fully involved in each other's lives. The noninterference situation usually involves joint custody, which functionally results in joint decision-making by the parents in regard to their offspring. The child visits frequently with the nonresidential parent, speaks on the phone with the parent whenever needed or desired, and enjoys the benefit of that parent's involvement in school, extracurricular, religious, and other activities. State laws, reflecting the best interest of the child principle envision the noninterference situation in divorce involving children.
Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that millions of children and parents are suffering from the problem of child visitation interference. From the clinical and legal literature, there appear to be at least three types of situations related to child visitation interference: (1) acute interference; (2) Parental Alienation Syndrome (Gardner, 1987); and (3) Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome (Turkat in press).
ACUTE INTERFERENCE
The custodial parent who engages in acute interference has no systematic or devious plan for ongoing disruption of the relationship between child and nonresidential parent. Rather, the custodial parent intermittently or transiently denies visitation either through direct action (e.g., informing the nonresidential parent that his or her visitation is being denied) or passively (e.g., the nonresidential parent arrives to meet with his or her child and neither the custodial parent or the child are at home). Such instances of child visitation interference are typically associated with anger at the nonresidential parent for some matter (e.g. lack of payment of child support), poor advice by a friend, or other reasons (e.g. abusive behavior by the father toward the custodial mother -- see Shepard, 1992).
PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
In certain cases, child visitation interference is a direct result of a custodial parent suffering from a Parental Alienation Syndrome (Gardner, 1987, 1989). Here, the custodial parent engages in a variety of direct and indirect methods designed to alienate the child from his or her nonresidential parent. The result is that the child becomes preoccupied with unjustified criticism and hatred of the nonresidential parent.
Gardner (1989) has outlined four factors that he believes contributes to the development of Parental Alienation Syndrome. These include: (1) brainwashing, (2) subtle and unconscious parental programming, (3) factors arising within the child, and (4) situational factors.
Gardner (1989) uses the term brainwashing to refer to "...conscious acts of programming the child against the other parent" (p. 233). Examples include accusing the father of being an "adulterer" and "abandoner." Typically, the father is unjustifiably accused of providing too little money, sometimes to the point that the mother misleads her children to believe that terrible things will happen to them. When the father leaves the home, the mother may make statements such as, "your father has abandoned us," to teach the child that the rejection extends not only to the mother but to the offspring. Minor negative attributes of the father are exaggerated greatly. For example, the father who occasionally has an afterdinner drink is described as an alcoholic. Sarcastic comments are common, including statements to the child such as, "your wonderful generous father is finally going to spend a few dollars and take you to the movies!"
More subtle attempts to program the child against the nonresidential parent include comments such as, "there are things I could say about your father that would make your hair stand on end, but I'm not the kind of person who criticizes a parent to his children" (Gardner, 1989, p. 239). Clearly, statements such as this create much negative emotion in the child. In regard to visitation, the child in such a home becomes astutely aware of the mother's desire for the child to hate the father. To gain her acceptance, the child makes statements suggesting uncertainty or lack of desire to visit with the nonresidential parent. The mother suffering from Parental Alienation Syndrome may act in a "neutral" manner by communicating to the child that it is the child's decision whether or not to visit with the nonresidential parent. This "neutrality maneuver" helps to further alienate the father from his offspring by passively discouraging visitation; the child knows not to express desire to visit the "hated" parent.
Engendering guilt in the offspring is another common maneuver. A child who desires visitation with the father might be told, "how can you leave your poor old mother!" (Gardner, 1989, p. 241).
In regard to factors arising within the child, Gardner notes that the child's predivorce psychological bond with the residential parent is typically stronger than that with the nonresidential parent. Fearing potential abandonment from the residential parent, the child is more prone to join the mother in the parental alienation attempt. Gardner also believes that psychodynamic factors such as reaction formation and oedipal attributes sometimes are contributing factors to the development of alienation.
Finally, a variety of situational factors contribute to the development of the syndrome as well. For example, a child who views a sibling being punished for having expressed positive feelings towards the father will learn quickly not to express such feelings openly. A child who observes the mother verbally abuse the father may declare emotional preference for the mother for self-protection purposes.
Gardner notes that the Parental Alienation Syndrome varies in degree from case to case. While the overwhelming majority of adult cases are female, he believes that 90% of all custody battles reveal some aspects of the Parental Alienation Syndrome.
DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME
Some cases of chronic visitation interference go beyond attempts at alienating a child from a parent. Turkat (in press) has reported on cases where the divorcing wife has attempted to get her divorcing or divorced husband fired from work, investigated for (falsely alleged) sexual abuse, publicly ridiculed, or physically harmed. From a variety of clinical and legal cases, Turkat (in press) has identified the Divorce related Malicious Mother Syndrome. The specific criteria for this disorder can be seen in Figure 1.
The disorder is characterized by the mother: (1) attempting to unjustifiably punish her divorcing husband; (2) interfering with the father's visitation and access to the child; and (3) engaging in a variety of malicious acts towards the husband, including lying and violations of law.
Turkat (in press) provides some dramatic examples of the kind of behavior engaged in by individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome: burning down the house of the ex-husband; falsely accusing the father of sexual abuse; manipulating mental health professionals to testify in court that the divorcing husband is in need of therapy (even when the mental health professional has never met the father); manipulating a secretary at a school to participate in kidnapping the child; informing her offspring that their father is not really their father; telling the father's boss, at his work location, that the father has abused his children; breaking into the residence of her divorcing husband and stealing important papers; and one woman who intentionally drove her car into the house of her divorced husband.
Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is a serious disorder. Turkat (in press) has noted that such individuals rarely see themselves as having a problem, are adept at manipulating others in the campaign against the father, and are skilled fabricators. The classification, etiology, and treatment of such cases is unknown.
FIGURE 1. Diagnostic criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. (Adapted from Turkat, in press, with permission of the publisher, Plenum Publishing, New York.)
A mother who unjustifiably punishes her divorcing or divorced husband by:
Attempting to alienate their mutual child(ren) from the father
Involving others in malicious actions against the father
Engaging in excessive litigation
The mother specifically attempts to deny her child(ren):
Regular uninterrupted visitation with the father
Uninhibited telephone access to the father
Paternal participation in the child(ren)'s school life and extracurricular activities
The pattern is pervasive and includes malicious acts towards the husband including:
Lying to the children
Lying to others
Violations of law
The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder although a separate mental disorder may coexist.
VISITATION INTERFERENCE AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The reader unfamiliar with divorce and custody proceedings may be perplexed as to why behaviors such as the ones cited above are permitted. Technically, they are not permitted. However, from a practical perspective, there is little that can be done to prevent such actions.
The legal system has a variety of attributes that unfortunately help to perpetuate child visitation interference by a parent who is dedicated to such interference. For example, most judges will demonstrate significant patience and "bend over backwards" to allow each side to adequately present the case at it's own pace. Unfortunately, the benefit of giving everyone his/her "day in court" slows the process considerably. Attorneys who wish to stall, postpone, or delay hearings have little difficulty doing so in most cares. Often, these are deliberate tactics utilized in a custody battle. Thus, a parent who might be charged with visitation interference may not have to appear before the judge on the issue for months after the fact.
An additional complicating factor is the expense. Attorney fees can run as high as $300 per hour or more. Few individuals can afford repeated appearances in court as the bills mount exorbitantly. This proves especially straining to a family that must now divide it's income and assets into two separate households.
A further complicating factor is that the court system can be powerfully manipulated by a good liar (Snyder, 1986). Research shows that detection of fabrication is generally poor (Ekman & O'Sullivan, 1991), and this provides an additional problem when it comes to child visitation interference. For example, a father who accuses the other parent of interfering with visitation may find that the other parent not only denies such interference but accuses the nonresidential parent of not appearing at designated visitation times. As there are typically no witnesses, the court is left in a quandary. Relatedly, a parent who has continually interfered with visitation may state in the courtroom that he or she will comply with the nonresidential parent's visitation request. Immediately following the hearing, the custodial parent returns to the visitation interference pattern, knowing that months may go by before a return to court.
An additional difficulty is that there is often a lack of potent consequences for custodial parents who engage in child visitation interference. A mother who interferes with visitation typically will be warned by the judge that she will be held in contempt of court. Unfortunately, this does not really amount to much more than merely "slapping her wrists." Rarely are custodial parents who interfere with child visitation imprisoned, penalized financially, or forced to lose primary residential custody of the children. As such, many parents who are aware of the court's ineffectiveness take full advantage. It should be noted that the judicial system is well aware of its own inadequacies in this area (see the Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).
In recent years, the courts have facilitated growth of mediation either by mental health professionals or by attorneys as an alternative to the adversarial process of the courtroom. Unfortunately, it only takes one unreasonable or uncooperative parent to sabotage the mediation effort. The parent who utters words of cooperation and then violates these words by actions outside of the mediation room frustrates the process.
Finally, when mental health experts are asked to provide input to the court on visitation matters, the absence of sound scientific research findings hampers the contributions that such experts can make. Accordingly, judges often receive widely varying opinions which sometimes serves to depreciate the value of mental health input in the courtroom. At times, the mental health "expert" is in fact, incompetent (Turkat, 1993).
CONCLUSION
Each year millions of children are denied visitation with their nonresidential parent. Little is known about the nature of such interference, the causes of such interference, or how to treat such interference. Until this issue becomes the focus of scientific research, it would appear that psychologist input into the courtroom is significantly compromised. Given that millions of individuals are suffering, it behooves the profession to begin to address this important and perplexing problem.
REFERENCES
Arditti, J. A. (1992). Factors relating to custody, visitation, and child support for divorced fathers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17, 23-42.
Children's Rights Council. (1994). Annual convention brochure. Washington, DC: Author.
Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Georgia State University Law Review, 8, 539-807.
Ekman. P, & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar! American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.
Gardner, R. A. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R. A. (1989). Family evaluation in child custody mediations, arbitration and litigation. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Hetherington, E. M., & Arasteh, J. D. (Eds.) (1988). Impact of divorce, single parenting and step-parenting on children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hodges, W. F. (1991). Interventions for children of divorce (2nd. ed.) New York: John Wiley.
Keane, G. (1990). Florida divorce handbook. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press.
Kressel, K. (1985). The process of divorce. New York: Basic Books.
Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welfare, 71, 357-367.
Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1287-1289.
Turkat, I. D. (1993). Questioning the mental health expert's custody report. American Journal of Family Law, 7, 175-179.
Turkat, I. D. (in press). Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Journal of Family Violence.
Correspondence should be addressed to Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD, Florida Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of Medicine, 1225 Avenida Del Circo, Venice, FL 34285.
PDF version
Friday, May 29, 2009
Divorce is ugly business.
A trailer for the movie; Support? which explores the fundamental flaws in America's Family Courts covering the Divorce and Child Support System. As told through over 38 interviews with both custodial and non-custodial parents...
Child Support; Best Interest for who? Child, Parent or State
From a meeting with Utah State Senator Greg Bell. Child support is often thought of money spent in the child's best interest. However, the unspoken truth is that child support is unaccounted funds given to the custodial parent and further used in a competition for federal bonus funds.
In the first half of the video, concerned citizen, Tony Curtis, questions whose interest is served by child support. Senator Bells attests that millions of dollars are tied to child support - the interest of the state. In the second half of the video a grown child of divorce testifies as to the need for more accountability.
One of the most discussed issues at the meeting was 50/50 equal parenting legislation. Senator Bell explained to attendees the difficulties with jumping immediately to a 50/50 parenting presumption from the legislative and practical points of view and was open to looking further into 50/50 equal parenting based on research and studies.
Transcript:
Audience member: The best interests of the child is what I want to talk about. When we discuss this issue of 50/50 custody what often comes up is the economic situation for mothers. That's not talking about the best interests of the child then. You've switched from the best interests of the child now to the best interests of one parent. And what I would like to say about this is we really need to separate those two issues, because if it's truly in the best interests of the child having involvement from both parents, then why are we messing with that because we're concerned about economics for one parent?
Senator Bell: Well, you make a great point and if you and I were designing a new world that's where we would start. But we're not. We're stuck with a system and I'm just saying that there's no way you're going to lop off hundreds of millions of child support overnight or for even a three year ammortization. You know what I'm saying. It's a huge economic and social shift and you know whether you and I and all the angels agree or not we're not going to get the governor and 103 other people you know to move there overnight so ah you're right. The interests of the child is not necesarily found with the child support cause the child support may or may not go to the best interest of the children.
Another audience member: Senator Bell, I am one of those children. My parents divorced in Montana. And my dad currently lives here in Utah. It was a very unfair situation and I'd like to see something on the legislature that puts parents in responsibility to that child support. I'd like to see a program like Horizontee cards for welfare that maybe we keep track of that child support so that we know it's going for the children cause it's not parental support, it's child support. And my mom took the child support and didn't use it to support me. My mom never gave me a college fund. She never made sure I had the tools to be a successful adult. I escaped from my mother from a very abusive situation at the age of 17. My dad had to continue paying child support till I was 19. And I didn't live with my mom and I had no support from her. I would like to see something on the legislature that changes to where we do keep track of child support. My dad is currently $140,000... of what it goes towards, of what it's spent on. Because the price of raising a child is not dependent on a percentage of a wage, it is a price, but shouldn't we keep track of where that money goes so it's not used for mommy when the children are gone, for her and the new husband to go away to Hawaii. That's not a very useful use of that child support... and there's parents trading there child support for drugs and all sorts of ridiculous things.
Just how much money is this hundreds of millions in child support?? According to the website of the Utah Office of Recovery Services, over $195.9 million was collected in fiscal year 2006. Of this amount over $23.4 million was distributed to the Utah Department of Health (as apposed to being distributed to recipient parents), and at least $6.3 million made it directly into the state's general fund (as apposed to being distributed to recipient parents
Florida man owes $10,000 for child who's not his
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (CNN) -- Francisco Rodriguez owes more than $10,000 in back child support payments in a paternity case involving a 15-year-old girl who, according to DNA results and the girl's mother, is not his daughter.
Francisco Rodriguez is fighting for leniency in his paternity case. "It's not right. I'm not the father, " he said.
Rodriguez, who is married with two daughters and a son from his wife's previous marriage, is fighting for leniency. "It's not right. I'm not the father, " he said at a recent court hearing.
He says he knew nothing about the other girl until paperwork showed up about four years ago saying he was the father.
He now has DNA results that show the 15-year-old girl wasn't fathered by him. He even has an affidavit from the girl's mother -- a former girlfriend from 1990 -- saying he's "not the father" and asking that Rodriguez no longer be required to pay child support.
Yet the state of Florida is continuing to push him to pay $305 a month to support the girl, as well as the more than $10,000 already owed. He spent a night in jail because of his delinquent payments.
Why is he in such a bind?
He missed the deadline to legally contest paternity. That's because, he says, the paperwork didn't reach him until after the deadline had passed. Watch Rodriguez plead in court for a break »
"It's like you're drowning every day," says Rodriguez, a massage therapist.
Rodriguez's case highlights the legal dilemma states face over how to handle paternity cases. More than a third of children born in the United States are born to unmarried parents, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
But paternity laws vary from state to state, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a nonprofit organization that works to improve the lives of low-income families.
Some states have detailed laws to challenge paternity within deadlines, while others offer little guidance. In most cases, men have 60 days to challenge paternity, according to CLASP.
After that, it can be "challenged only on the basis of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact," CLASP said last year in an update to a report on paternity law.
"There are no perfect answers," says Susan Paikin of the Center for Support of Families in Delaware. "Deadlines are imposed so that when families are broken -- the legal process is handled quickly."
She says state legislatures and courts struggle with paternity cases, trying to strike the proper balance between children's rights and adults' rights, always keeping in mind any potential harm to the child.
"This is a struggle. It's not something easy for courts or legislatures," she says.
Paikin says it's especially tricky in cases where a father has raised a child thinking it was his, only to learn years later the child had a different father.
"Most men who have a relationship with their child don't think of their child in terms of DNA," she said. "The real issue in most of these cases is anger and money."
Tampa Police officer Michael Anderson understands that sentiment. He paid child support for more than 12 years -- a total outlay he says amounted to more than $80,000. But a DNA test after he and his wife divorced showed the daughter he thought was his was somebody else's.
He then separated himself and his feelings from the child.
"I stopped having a relationship with the girl right from the beginning, when I found out," he said. "It was hard, but I had to do it."
A Tampa court earlier this year disestablished him as father and relieved him of his future child support payments. But by law, he is unable to get back the $80,000 he already paid.
Carnell Smith, who founded a group called U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, wants mandatory DNA tests when a child is born to avoid legal wrangling and anguish.
"Unfortunately, today it's not a crime for someone to lie about which man is the father," Smith said. "The mother doesn't have to return the money and rarely, if ever, is she prosecuted for perjury, for fraud."
Rodriguez's odyssey began in 1990, when he says at age 16 he had a four- to five-month relationship with a woman CNN is not identifying. He says when the relationship ended, he did not hear from her again until child support papers arrived at his home in 2003.
"My wife and I both had a confused look, and we're wondering, 'Where is the DNA test?' " he says.
But it was long past Florida's deadline to contest paternity. A court had already named him the father three years before when he did not respond to notices to appear, notices he says he never received because he had moved a lot.
He was now on the hook for monthly child support, as well as $10,623 in back child support.
He eventually paid for DNA testing. The test showed he was not the father.
A judge has now ordered a court-sanctioned DNA test for Rodriguez and the 15-year-old girl. Rodriguez has taken that test; the girl and her mother did not show up for their appointment to submit to DNA testing and it's unclear if the girl has complied.
CNN has repeatedly tried to contact the mother, but has been unable to reach her.
Rodriguez and his family continue to wait for answers.
"It's hard when your daughter needs sneakers and you have to pay $305 or your husband goes to jail," said Rodriguez's wife, Michele. "It's just unfair."
CNN's Rich Phillips contributed to this report.
Watch video: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Francisco Rodriguez is fighting for leniency in his paternity case. "It's not right. I'm not the father, " he said.
Rodriguez, who is married with two daughters and a son from his wife's previous marriage, is fighting for leniency. "It's not right. I'm not the father, " he said at a recent court hearing.
He says he knew nothing about the other girl until paperwork showed up about four years ago saying he was the father.
He now has DNA results that show the 15-year-old girl wasn't fathered by him. He even has an affidavit from the girl's mother -- a former girlfriend from 1990 -- saying he's "not the father" and asking that Rodriguez no longer be required to pay child support.
Yet the state of Florida is continuing to push him to pay $305 a month to support the girl, as well as the more than $10,000 already owed. He spent a night in jail because of his delinquent payments.
Why is he in such a bind?
He missed the deadline to legally contest paternity. That's because, he says, the paperwork didn't reach him until after the deadline had passed. Watch Rodriguez plead in court for a break »
"It's like you're drowning every day," says Rodriguez, a massage therapist.
Rodriguez's case highlights the legal dilemma states face over how to handle paternity cases. More than a third of children born in the United States are born to unmarried parents, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
But paternity laws vary from state to state, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a nonprofit organization that works to improve the lives of low-income families.
Some states have detailed laws to challenge paternity within deadlines, while others offer little guidance. In most cases, men have 60 days to challenge paternity, according to CLASP.
After that, it can be "challenged only on the basis of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact," CLASP said last year in an update to a report on paternity law.
"There are no perfect answers," says Susan Paikin of the Center for Support of Families in Delaware. "Deadlines are imposed so that when families are broken -- the legal process is handled quickly."
She says state legislatures and courts struggle with paternity cases, trying to strike the proper balance between children's rights and adults' rights, always keeping in mind any potential harm to the child.
"This is a struggle. It's not something easy for courts or legislatures," she says.
Paikin says it's especially tricky in cases where a father has raised a child thinking it was his, only to learn years later the child had a different father.
"Most men who have a relationship with their child don't think of their child in terms of DNA," she said. "The real issue in most of these cases is anger and money."
Tampa Police officer Michael Anderson understands that sentiment. He paid child support for more than 12 years -- a total outlay he says amounted to more than $80,000. But a DNA test after he and his wife divorced showed the daughter he thought was his was somebody else's.
He then separated himself and his feelings from the child.
"I stopped having a relationship with the girl right from the beginning, when I found out," he said. "It was hard, but I had to do it."
A Tampa court earlier this year disestablished him as father and relieved him of his future child support payments. But by law, he is unable to get back the $80,000 he already paid.
Carnell Smith, who founded a group called U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, wants mandatory DNA tests when a child is born to avoid legal wrangling and anguish.
"Unfortunately, today it's not a crime for someone to lie about which man is the father," Smith said. "The mother doesn't have to return the money and rarely, if ever, is she prosecuted for perjury, for fraud."
Rodriguez's odyssey began in 1990, when he says at age 16 he had a four- to five-month relationship with a woman CNN is not identifying. He says when the relationship ended, he did not hear from her again until child support papers arrived at his home in 2003.
"My wife and I both had a confused look, and we're wondering, 'Where is the DNA test?' " he says.
But it was long past Florida's deadline to contest paternity. A court had already named him the father three years before when he did not respond to notices to appear, notices he says he never received because he had moved a lot.
He was now on the hook for monthly child support, as well as $10,623 in back child support.
He eventually paid for DNA testing. The test showed he was not the father.
A judge has now ordered a court-sanctioned DNA test for Rodriguez and the 15-year-old girl. Rodriguez has taken that test; the girl and her mother did not show up for their appointment to submit to DNA testing and it's unclear if the girl has complied.
CNN has repeatedly tried to contact the mother, but has been unable to reach her.
Rodriguez and his family continue to wait for answers.
"It's hard when your daughter needs sneakers and you have to pay $305 or your husband goes to jail," said Rodriguez's wife, Michele. "It's just unfair."
CNN's Rich Phillips contributed to this report.
Watch video: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Shared Parenting: Child Custody, Access, and Parental Responsibility
The most recent research strongly supports a shift away from the "one size its all," "winner take all" sole custody framework toward the notion of shared parental responsibility.
Prof. Edward Kruk (Canada) has published a definitive paper on the merits and policy for shared parenting.
PDF copies are attached and the text of the summary is included in the box below.
The papter is entitled "Child Custody, Access, and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard", and was written by professor so social work Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D., at The University of British Columbia. It is published by Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance (FIRA), December 2008.
He proposes a four-pillar approach to child custody determination:
1. Harm Reduction: A rebuttable legal presumption of joint physical custody after divorce
2. Treatment: Parenting plans, mediation and intervention / support in high conflict cases
3. Prevention: Shared parenting education and judicial determination in cases of established abuse, along with enforcement of shared parental responsibility orders
4. Enforcement: Judicially-determined arrangements in cases where family violence is a factor
The most recent research strongly supports a shift away from the "one size its all," "winner take all" sole custody framework toward the notion of shared parental responsibility.
The paper provides an empirical foundation for, and a step-by-step process, for implementation of an equal parenting bill.
The paper examines the issues, surveys approaches in UK, USA, Sweden and Australia, examines Canadian Child custody legislation at a provincial level, reviews Canadian efforts to make changes, and critiques the traditional sole custody approach as a basis leading up to the universal four-pillar approach for Equal Parenting.
The full paper, a summary and a Powerpoint presentation, can be download from the following URLs (and are attached below)
Prof. Edward Kruk (Canada) has published a definitive paper on the merits and policy for shared parenting.
PDF copies are attached and the text of the summary is included in the box below.
The papter is entitled "Child Custody, Access, and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard", and was written by professor so social work Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D., at The University of British Columbia. It is published by Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance (FIRA), December 2008.
He proposes a four-pillar approach to child custody determination:
1. Harm Reduction: A rebuttable legal presumption of joint physical custody after divorce
2. Treatment: Parenting plans, mediation and intervention / support in high conflict cases
3. Prevention: Shared parenting education and judicial determination in cases of established abuse, along with enforcement of shared parental responsibility orders
4. Enforcement: Judicially-determined arrangements in cases where family violence is a factor
The most recent research strongly supports a shift away from the "one size its all," "winner take all" sole custody framework toward the notion of shared parental responsibility.
The paper provides an empirical foundation for, and a step-by-step process, for implementation of an equal parenting bill.
The paper examines the issues, surveys approaches in UK, USA, Sweden and Australia, examines Canadian Child custody legislation at a provincial level, reviews Canadian efforts to make changes, and critiques the traditional sole custody approach as a basis leading up to the universal four-pillar approach for Equal Parenting.
The full paper, a summary and a Powerpoint presentation, can be download from the following URLs (and are attached below)
Lorne Gunter: Promote equal parenting
Children who grow up without both parents in their lives are more prone to a whole host of social problems.
According to a three-year study done by Edward Kruk, an associate professor of social work at the University of British Columbia, 85% of young people in prison and youth detention are fatherless. This is a particularly important finding since, according to Statistics Canada, youth crime is the only category of crime that has been consistently increasing over the past decade. Nearly one-in-five young Canadians will have a run-in with the law — more than twice the percentage of adults — and most of them have no father in the home.
A combination of his own research and the findings of dozens of long-term studies of the effects of divorce on children, Professor Kruk’s study explains that 90% of runaways, as well as 71% of dropouts and majorities of depressed, suicidal, addicted and pregnant teens, grew up in father-absent homes.
It’s true: There are bad dads out there — men who abuse their wives or children, or both, or even just abandon them, disappearing entirely from their lives. But more often than not, father absence is the result of divorce, and, increasingly, of our legal system’s deliberate bias in favour of mothers and against fathers in custody awards.
Nearly 80% of custody awards in Canadian courts are made to mothers, and visitation rights are almost never enforced with the same enthusiasm as child support awards. Public officials are quick to condemn so-called deadbeat dads, passing laws to suspend their driver’s licenses and government cheques if they are behind on their payments to their exes. Yet mothers who deny visitation are almost never punished. No province, in practice, has penalties for access denial that match those for falling behind on support.
Federal judges and many appointed to provincial courts are required to take sensitivity training on women’s perspectives of and experiences with the justice system. No similar courses about men’s perceptions are required, because the (badly mistaken) belief within the system is that our laws and courts are stacked in favour of men.
Among all the examples of anti-male bias in our family law, two stand out. In the mid-1990s, then-justice minister Allan Rock changed Canadian law so that men could no longer deduct child support from their taxes, while women receiving support no longer had to pay taxes on that income. In other words, men are taxed on income they do not have, while women — who are the recipients and beneficiaries of the income — don’t pay.
Many judges in divorce cases initially “grossed up” or “grossed down” their support awards to compensate for this new upside-down tax arrangement, so the net effect was neutral. Still, the point of the change was to punish men because the bias within the federal justice department held that men were all heels and women all victims.
Over time, too, the initial neutrality has vanished (if men’s stories of their financial experiences after divorce are to be believed), forcing many divorced fathers into poverty, alienation from their children, depression and even suicide.
The other glaring example of anti-male bias comes from Justice Canada’s rejection of a 1998 recommendation by a joint Commons-Senate committee that all child custody awards in divorce cases start as 50-50 mother-father arrangements. Not only did the justice department ignore the suggestion of “equal parenting,” in 2001 arch-feminist civil servants conducted their own cross-country review in secret, inviting testimony only from those special interest “experts” who agreed with their jaded view of men.
According to the latest census figures, husbands and wives who both work outside the home now spend nearly equal time raising children. If, in divorce, one parent is given far more time than the other with the children, the kids suffer badly from the loss of affection and contact with the non-custodial parent, who is usually the father.
The best solution is for couples to work harder to avoid divorce. It is a modern myth that if the adults are happier after divorce, the children eventually will be, too. Divorce is hard on kids, period.
But given that divorce is unavoidable today, the Conservative government must heed Prof. Kruk’s finding and reconsider the concept of equal parenting when marriages fall apart.
National Post
lgunter@shaw.ca
According to a three-year study done by Edward Kruk, an associate professor of social work at the University of British Columbia, 85% of young people in prison and youth detention are fatherless. This is a particularly important finding since, according to Statistics Canada, youth crime is the only category of crime that has been consistently increasing over the past decade. Nearly one-in-five young Canadians will have a run-in with the law — more than twice the percentage of adults — and most of them have no father in the home.
A combination of his own research and the findings of dozens of long-term studies of the effects of divorce on children, Professor Kruk’s study explains that 90% of runaways, as well as 71% of dropouts and majorities of depressed, suicidal, addicted and pregnant teens, grew up in father-absent homes.
It’s true: There are bad dads out there — men who abuse their wives or children, or both, or even just abandon them, disappearing entirely from their lives. But more often than not, father absence is the result of divorce, and, increasingly, of our legal system’s deliberate bias in favour of mothers and against fathers in custody awards.
Nearly 80% of custody awards in Canadian courts are made to mothers, and visitation rights are almost never enforced with the same enthusiasm as child support awards. Public officials are quick to condemn so-called deadbeat dads, passing laws to suspend their driver’s licenses and government cheques if they are behind on their payments to their exes. Yet mothers who deny visitation are almost never punished. No province, in practice, has penalties for access denial that match those for falling behind on support.
Federal judges and many appointed to provincial courts are required to take sensitivity training on women’s perspectives of and experiences with the justice system. No similar courses about men’s perceptions are required, because the (badly mistaken) belief within the system is that our laws and courts are stacked in favour of men.
Among all the examples of anti-male bias in our family law, two stand out. In the mid-1990s, then-justice minister Allan Rock changed Canadian law so that men could no longer deduct child support from their taxes, while women receiving support no longer had to pay taxes on that income. In other words, men are taxed on income they do not have, while women — who are the recipients and beneficiaries of the income — don’t pay.
Many judges in divorce cases initially “grossed up” or “grossed down” their support awards to compensate for this new upside-down tax arrangement, so the net effect was neutral. Still, the point of the change was to punish men because the bias within the federal justice department held that men were all heels and women all victims.
Over time, too, the initial neutrality has vanished (if men’s stories of their financial experiences after divorce are to be believed), forcing many divorced fathers into poverty, alienation from their children, depression and even suicide.
The other glaring example of anti-male bias comes from Justice Canada’s rejection of a 1998 recommendation by a joint Commons-Senate committee that all child custody awards in divorce cases start as 50-50 mother-father arrangements. Not only did the justice department ignore the suggestion of “equal parenting,” in 2001 arch-feminist civil servants conducted their own cross-country review in secret, inviting testimony only from those special interest “experts” who agreed with their jaded view of men.
According to the latest census figures, husbands and wives who both work outside the home now spend nearly equal time raising children. If, in divorce, one parent is given far more time than the other with the children, the kids suffer badly from the loss of affection and contact with the non-custodial parent, who is usually the father.
The best solution is for couples to work harder to avoid divorce. It is a modern myth that if the adults are happier after divorce, the children eventually will be, too. Divorce is hard on kids, period.
But given that divorce is unavoidable today, the Conservative government must heed Prof. Kruk’s finding and reconsider the concept of equal parenting when marriages fall apart.
National Post
lgunter@shaw.ca
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
DATA & STUDIES SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR EQUAL PARENTING
For Kids' Sake is a recently formed, rapidly growing, non-profit group, organized out of frustration with the existing family court system, and its lack of true concern for the children of divorce and paternity cases. We have been studying family court guidelines, rulings, and legislative proposals pertaining to the family court guidelines for a few years now, and see a desperate need for real changes.
We are here to proclaim that the judicial system, with its sweeping discretion, is grossly failing Wisconsin's children.
The family court system, operating under the "best interest of the child standard", has become a forum for tug-o-war, where the children are the financial and emotional trophy to be "won". Consequently, thousands of children are unnecessarily deprived the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent.
Many legislators, and much of the public, are unaware of the magnitude of the problems arising from the discretionary decisions being made by the judiciary, operating under the "best interest of the child" standard of the current family court guidelines.
In today's troubled world, when children of divorce, or paternity cases, have two fit parents who want to remain significantly involved in their children's lives, we should be delighted! Such children should be considered, very fortunate; however, they are generally not, as a result of family court discretion.
In a deluded attempt to reduce conflict, the courts are overwhelmingly reducing one parent, usually the father, to the role of an occasional visitor/baby sitter; as if empowering one parent as the superior, supposedly will cease conflict. Yes, one parent will have the upper hand to finalize disputes, however, in reality, such arrangements actually increase conflict, as they merely cause the problems to fester.
Part of the tragedy is that, in reality, these courts have neither the time, nor the expertise to determine which parent is the truly "better parent". Yet the role of one parent is officially deemed to be of little significance, and their main parental role is only permitted to be financial. The frequent, and logical, result of this arrangement is that the "non-custodial parent" (typically the father) tends to have progressively decreasing involvement with the child, as time goes on, until that parent ends up being nothing but a paycheck and a periodic baby sitter.
The following data outlines the clear predominance of sole custody awards, and some of the many resulting harmful effects. As the data reveals, this inflicts significant, harmful, long term effects on these children which could, and should, be prevented in thousands of cases, through the enactment of a presumption of equal-parenting laws.
The courts, media, and legislature must start to understand that a child's best interest is a whole lot more than financial. We need our elected officials to take a stand to stop this tragedy that is affecting our society as a whole. There needs to be legal recognition of both parents equal rights, equal value placed on their respective roles, and equal opportunity to develop in those roles.
Mutual respect and cooperation between parents is best accomplished when both parties are acknowledged for their status as equals. The evidence reveals, the true "best interest of the child" in family court, is to take children out of their current position as financial and emotional trophies, and to presume that both parents, providing they are fit, should have maximum/equal opportunity to parent them. The courts need to stop declaring a "winner" and a "loser" with regard to child placement decisions. They need to take away the incentive, and the ability, for parents to battle over the children.
Furthermore, children need the opportunity to benefit from, and internalize both parents methods, input, and morals. And this all requires significant parenting time. Each parent needs the autonomy to develop a personal style and method of child rearing, with minimal interference from the other parent or the state.
We ask - who are judges, court commissioners, you, or I, to involuntarily deny a fit parent from an equal opportunity to care for, and nurture, their child?
And more importantly who are we to deny that child that opportunity of equal access to that parent?
When children have two fit, interested parents, they deserve the opportunity for a full/equal relationship with both parents. We are calling for the enactment a presumption of equal-parenting laws (eg. LRB1834, ready for introduction) to limit the discretion of the judiciary to cases that exhibit evidence of abuse or neglect. Opposing such a presumption, condones that children are of tokens to be fought over, and is truly child abuse at the hand of the legislature.
Note: Take into serious consideration that attorneys, court commissioners, and others employed by the system, who object to a presumption of equal parenting opportunities, have a vested interest in the status quo. (i.e. their criticism is often voice out of concern for personal job security).
PREVALENCE OF SOLE (AND MATERNAL) CUSTODY
1. The proportion of children living with just one parent rose from 9% in 1960 to 25% in 1990.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Family Life Today...And How it has Changed" SB/92-13 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office: November 1992)
2. In 1993, 27% of children under 18 years old lived with only one parent, up from 12% in 1970.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Gap Narrows Between Children Living with a Divorced or Single Parent, Census Bureau Finds," by Arlene Saluter (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, July 20, 1994)
3. More than 90% of litigated divorces result in an award of sole custody to the mother.
Source: 1991 Census Bureau
4. The number of children living only with mother grew from 8% (5.1 million) in 1960 to 23.3% (15.6 million) in 1993. Source: U.S. Congress, Committee on Ways and Means, "The Green Book" (Washington D.C., 1993); see also U.S. department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1993", by Arlene Saluter, Current Population Reports: Population Characteristics P20-478 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1994).
5. The chances that a child born around 1980 will not be living with both biological parents at age 17 have increased to over 50%.
Source: Donald J. Hernandez, "America's Children: Resources from Family, Government, and the Economy (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1993).
6. About 40% of the children who live in fatherless households haven't seen their fathers in at least a year. Of the remaining 60%, only 20% sleep even one night per month in the father's home. Only one in six sees their father an average of once or more per week.
Source: Frank F. Furstenberg Jr. and Christing Winquist Nord, "Parenting Apart: Patterns of Child Rearing After Marital Disruption," Journal of Marriage and the Family (November 1985), p.896.
7. In disrupted families, only one child in six, on average, saw his or her father as often as once a week in the past year. Close to half did not see their father at all in the past year. As time goes on, contact becomes even more infrequent. Ten years after a marriage breaks up, more than two- thirds of children report not having seen their father for a year.
Source: National Commission on Children, "Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents" (Washington, D.C., 1991).
8. With increasing numbers of children living with only their mothers, many children have tenuous or nonexistent relationships with their fathers. In a 1990 survey, only one-third of children in female-headed families reported seeing their fathers at least once a week. Nearly one in five children in female-headed families had not seen their fathers for five years.
Source: National Commission on Children, "Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents (Washington, 1991).
9. The United States is now the world's leader in fatherless families. In 1986, the United States took over first place, when 24% of America's families were headed by a single parent, and today nearly 30% of families in the United States are headed by a single parent.
Source: Alisa Burns, "Mother Headed Families: An International Perspective and the Case of Australia," Social Policy Report 6 (Spring 1992).
10. America has the highest divorce rate in the world. At present rates, approximately half of all U.S. marriages can be expected to end in divorce.
Source: National Commission on Children, "Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent Information on America's Children and Their Families" (Washington D.C., 1993).
11. 55% of all white children, and 75% of all black children born in the last two decades are likely to live some portion of their childhood with an absent father.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Divorce, Child Custody, and Child Support," Current Population Reports Ser p-23 No. 84 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979); and L.L Bumpass and J.A. Sweet, "Children's Experience in Single-Parent Families: Implications of Cohabitation and Marital Transitions," Family Planning Perspectives 21 (1989), pp.256-260.
12. During the last three decades, the percentage of children living with a step-parent has climbed from 6.7% to 11.3%. More than 9 out of 10 step-children live with their biological mother and a stepfather.
Source: David Popenoe, "The Evolution of Marriage and the Problem of Stepfamilies: A Biosocial Perspective," paper presented at the National Symposium on Stepfamilies at the Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA, October 14, 1993.
EMOTIONAL/BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SOLE CUSTODY
1. The continued involvement of the non-custodial parent in the child's life appears crucial in preventing an intense sense of loss in the child... The importance of the relationship with the non-custodial parent may also have implications for the legal issues of custodial arrangements and visitation. The results of this study indicate that arrangements where both parents are equally involved with the child are optimal. When this type of arrangement is not possible, the child's continued relationship with the non-custodial parent remains essential.
Source: Young Adult Children of Divorced Parents: Depression and the Perception of Loss, Rebecca L. Drill, P.h.D., Harvard University. Journal of Divorce, V.10, #1/2, Fall/Winter 1986.
2. "Parental divorce and father loss has been associated with difficulties in school adjustment (e.g. Felner, Ginter, Boike, & CowenJ), social adjustment (e.g. Fry & Grover) and personal adjustment (e.g. Covell & Turnbull)..." "The results of the present study suggest that father loss through divorce is associated with diminished self-concepts in children...at least for this sample from the midwestern United States."
Source: Children's Self Concepts: Are They Affected by Parental Divorce and Remarriage; Thomas S. Parish, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1987, V.2, #4, 559-562.
3. "It is ironic, and of some interest, that we have subjected joint custody to a level and intensity of scrutiny that was never directed towards the traditional post-divorce arrangement (sole legal and physical custody to the mother and two weekends each month of visiting to the father). Developmental and relationship theory should have alerted the mental health field to the potential immediate and long range consequences for the child of only seeing a parent for four days each month. And yet until recently, there was no particular challenge to this traditional post-divorce parenting arrangement, despite growing evidence that such post-divorce relationships were not sufficiently nurturing or stabilizing for many children and parents."
4. "There is some evidence that in our well-meaning efforts to save children in the immediate post-separation period from anxiety, confusion, and the normative divorce-engendered conflict, we have set the stage in the longer run for the more ominous symptoms of anger, depression, and a deep sense of loss by depriving the child of the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent."
Source: Examining Resistance to Joint Custody, Monograph by Joan Kelly, P.h.D. (associate of Judith Wallerstein, P.h.D.) From the 1991 Book Joint Custody and Shared Parenting, second edition, Guilford Press, 1991.
5. Nunan compared 20 joint custody children (ages 7-11) with 20 age-matched children in sole maternal custody. All families were at least two years after separation or divorce. Joint custody children were found to have higher ego strengths, superego strengths and self-esteem than the single custody children. The joint custody children were also found to be less excitable and less impatient than their sole custody counterparts.
Source: S.A. Nunan, "Joint Custody vs. Single Custody Effects on Child Development", Doctoral thesis 1980. California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, UMI No. 81-10142
6. Welsh-Osga compared children intact families with joint custody and single custody families. Age range 4.5 to 10 years old. Children from joint custody were found to be more satisfied with the time spent with both parents. Parents in joint custody were found to be more involved with their children. (Joint custody parents found to be less overburdened by parenting responsibilities than sole custody parents).
Source: B. Welsh-Osga, "The Effects of Custody Arrangements on Children of Divorce." Doctoral thesis, 1981. University of South Dakota, UMI No.82-6914.
7. Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal) custody families. Children in joint custody were rated as better adjusted by their mothers compared with children of sole custody mothers. The children's perceptions in sole custody situations correlated with the amount of time spent with their father! The more time children from sole maternal custody spent with their fathers, the more accepting BOTH parents were perceived to be, and the more well-adjusted were the children.
Source: D.B. Cowan, "Mother Custody vs. Joint Custody: Children's Parental Relationship and Adjustment." Doctoral Thesis, 1982. University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213
8. Pojman compared children in the age range 5 to 13 years old. Boys in joint custody were significantly better adjusted than boys in sole maternal custody. Comparing boys in all groups, boys in joint custody compared very similarly to boys from happy families.
Source: E.G. Pojman. "Emotional Adjustment of Boys in Sole and Joint Custody Compared with Adjustment of Boys in Happy and Unhappy Marriages." Doctoral thesis 1982. California Graduate Institute. UMI No. ? Source of similar finding: V. Shiller. "Joint and Maternal Custody: The Outcome for Boys aged 6-11 and Their Parents." Doctoral thesis 1984. University of Deleware. UMI No. 85-11219. Source of similar finding: J. Schaub, "Joint Custody After Divorce: Views and Attitudes of Mental Health Professionals and Writers." Rutgers University,Doctoral Thesis, 1986. No. 86-14559
9. 90 fathers were questioned regarding how unequal recognition of parental rights might encourage conflict. Joint legal custody was found to encourage parental cooperation and discourage self-interest. Sole custody in both custodial AND non-custodial status encouraged punishment-oriented persuasion strategies. Unequal custody power was perceived as inhibiting parental cooperation by BOTH parents.
Source: M.R. Patrician. "The Effects of Legal Child-Custody Status on Persuasion Strategy Choices and Communication Goals of Fathers." Doctoral thesis 1984. University of San Francisco. UMI No. 85-14995.
10. Self Esteem found higher in children of joint custody. Children in joint custody report significantly more positive experiences than children of sole maternal custody.
Source: S.A. Wolchik, S.L. Braver and I.N. Sandler. J. of Clinical Child Psychology. Vol. 14, p.5-10, 1985.
11. Age range of children 5 to 12 years, studying early period of separation or divorce. Boys and girls in sole custody situation had more negative involvement with their parents than in joint custody situations. There was an increase reported in sibling rivalry reported for sole custody children when visiting their father (non-custodial parent). Girls in joint custody reported to have significantly higher self-esteem than girls in sole custody.
Source: E.B. Karp. Children's Adjustment in Joint and Single Custody: An Empirical Study. Doctoral thesis 1982. California school of professional psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 83-6977.
12. Comparative study of children in mother sole custody, father sole custody, joint custody with mother primary, joint custody with father primary. Children in joint custody situations were found to be better adjusted than children in sole custody situations.
Source: J.A. Livingston. "Children After Divorce: A Psychosocial Analysis of the Effects of Custody on Self-esteem." Doctoral thesis 1983. University of Vermont. UMI No. 83-26981.
13. Nationally, 19.1% of children from 3 to 17 years old, living only with their biological mother, and 23.6% of those living with their biological mother and stepfather, exhibit a significant emotional or behavioral problem. This compares to only 8.3% of children living with both biological parents.
Source: N. Zill and C. Schoenborn, "Developmental, Learning, and Emotional Problems: Health of our Nation's Children", National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Data, 190 (November 16, 1990).
14. Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent. Source: Jean Bethke Elshtain, "Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children", The Christian Century (July 1993), pp. 14-21.
15. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teenage pregnancy and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, "Survey on Child Health" (Washington, D.C., 1993).
16. Children who live apart from their fathers are 4.3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with their fathers in the home:
Source: Warren R. Stanton, Tian P.S. Oci, and Phil A. Silva, "Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adolescent Smokers," The International Journal of the Addictions (1994), pp.913-925.
SOLE CUSTODY AND CRIME
1. A 1988 study found that the proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community's poverty level does not.
Source: Douglas A. Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25 (February 1988), pp.27-52.
2. "If you look at the one factor that most closely correlates with crime, it's not poverty, it's not unemployment, it's not education. It's the absence of the father in the family."
Source: Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, 1994 30. "Children are the fastest growing segment of the criminal population in the United States." Source: U.S. Department of Justice, 1992
3. 87% of Wisconsin juvenile delinquents are a product of father-absent homes.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, 1994
4. 72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers.
Source: Dewey Cornell, et. al., "Characteristics of Adolescents Charged with Homicide," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 5 (1987), pp.11-23. Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991
5. 60% of America's rapists grew up in homes without fathers.
Source: Nicholas Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review (1990); see also Karl Zinsmeister, "Crime is Terrorizing Our Nation's Kids," Citizen (Pamona, CA: Focus on the Family, Aug. 20, 1990), p.12 Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991
6. The relationship (between family structure and crime) is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature."
Source: Elaine Kamarack and William Galston, "Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990's" (Washington D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute, September 1990).
7. 70% of the juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations.
Source: Allen Beck, Susan Kline, and Lawrence Greenfield, "Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987", U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 1988.
8. 70% of long-term prisoners grew up in father-absent homes.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991
GENERAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO SOLE CUSTODY
1. Almost half of all mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children following separation or divorce, and up to 40% of mothers interfere with the dad's relationship with his kids.
Source: Sanford Braver, a University of Arizona psychologist
2. Only half of divorced mothers value the absent father's continued contact with his children. One-fifth saw no value in continued contact whatsoever, and "...actively tried to sabotage the meetings by sending the children away just before the father's arrival, by insisting that the child was ill or had pressing homework to do, by making a scene, or by leaving the children with the husband and disappearing."
Source: Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan Berlin Kelly P.h.D., "Surviving the Breakup:How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce" (New York: Basic Books, 1990), p.125.
3. Williams studied high-conflict, high-risk situations. He found that children in sole custody (typically but not exclusively maternal) much more likely to be subject to parental kidnapping and/or physical harm. He found that high-conflict families do better and are more likely to learn cooperative behavior when given highly detailed orders from the judge.
Source: F.S. Williams. "Child Custody and Parental Cooperation." American Bar Association, Family Law, August 1987.
4. More than 50% of all children who don't live with their father have never been in their father's home.
Source: Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin, "Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).
5. Based on a national study following 13,000 14- to 21-year-olds beginning in 1975, it was found that, whereas 57% of unwed fathers with children no older than 2 years of age visited their children more than once a week, only 23% were in frequent contact with their children at age 2-1/2 years or older
Source: Robert Lerman and Theodora J. Ooms, "Young Unwed Fathers: Changing Roles and Emerging Policies" (Philadelphia: Temple, 1993), p.45.
6. When asked whether they felt their parents "really care" about them, 97% of children ages 10 to 17 living with both biological parents said "yes" for their fathers. Of children living in a stepfamily, only 71% said "yes" for their fathers. And of children living with only one parent, only 55% said "yes" for their fathers.
Source: The National Commission on Children, "Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents" (Washington, D.C.: 1991).
7. On average, single mothers spend roughly one-third less time each week than married mothers in primary child care activities such as dressing, feeding, chauffeuring,talking, playing or helping with homework.
Source: John P. Robinson, "How Americans Use Time: A Social Psychological Analysis of Everyday Behavior" (New York, Praeger, 1977), p.70; see also John P.Robinson, "Caring for Kids", American Demographics (July 1989).
8. Even for fathers who maintain regular contact, the pattern of father-child relationships changes. Fathers behave more like relatives than like parents. Instead of helping with homework or carrying out a project with their children, nonresidential fathers are likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Insteadof providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become "treat" dads.
Source: Frank Furstenberg, Jr. and Andrew Cherlin, "Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 10.
9. Between 1971 and 1981, Judith S. Wallerstein conducted a study of 60 families who experience divorce. Included in the study were 131 children and 60 adolescents. Interviews were conducted periodically between 1971 and 1981. Wallerstein reached the following conclusions:
10 years after the divorce, children of divorce felt "less protected, less cared for, less comforted... these children (had) vivid, gut-wrenching memories of their parents' separation."
Many five- to eight-year-old boys showed "an intense longing for theirfathers" after the divorce, that seemed physically painful.
Many fathers who moved out of the house found it difficult to sustain a close and loving relationship with their children, especially if one or both parents remarried. Yet, children tenaciously held onto an internal image, sometimes a fantasy image, of their absent or even visiting father.
Not only did the children's need for their father continue, it also tended to rise with new intensity at adolescence, especially when it was time for the children to leave home.
Source: Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce (New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1989)
10. The preponderance of research supports the presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of children.
Source: Children's Rights Council Report (CRC) R-103A. 1987 Synopses of Sole and Joint Custody Studies.
THE TRUTH ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE & CHILD ABUSE
1. 47. 55.5% of murder victims of domestic violence are male
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, "Murder in Families" July 1994
2. "One woman is battered every 15 seconds" is based on research by Strass and Gelles which indicate assaults by husbands or boyfriends on 1.8 million women every year. What is not generally mentioned is that the study further concluded "One man is battered every 14 seconds"
Source: Research by Murray Strauss and Richard Gelles as reported in "Women Are Responsible Too", Judith Shervin, Ph.D. and Jim Sniechowski, Ph.D., Los Angeles Times. June 21,1994.
3. "54% of all violence termed 'severe' was perpetrated by women."
Source: Research by Murray Strauss and Richard Gelles as reported in "Women Are Responsible Too", Judith Shervin, Ph.D. and Jim Sniechowski, Ph.D., Los Angeles Times. June 21, 1994.
4. "Since society does not define abuse of men by women as a problem, official police data reflects a much more frequent response to abuse of women by men than of men by women. Therefore it is not surprising to find over 90% of the calls to police or to hotlines coming from women, not men."
Source: "Spouse Abuse: A Two-Way Street", Warren Farrell, Ph.D., USAToday, June 29, 1994.
5. Data from the states' protective service agencies indicate that children have much more to fear from their mothers than from their fathers, with mothers abusing their children at a rate approaching or exceeding twice that of fathers. In New Jersey, for instance 70% of the confirmed parental child abuse is committed by mothers, not fathers, 66% in Alaska, 67% in Virginia, 68& in Texas, and 62% in Minnesota.
Source: A study of child abuse in Lansing, MI. Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay in Child Abuse and Neglect, Volume 8, 1984.
6. Preschoolers living without their biological father were 40 times more likely to be a victim of child abuse as compared to like-aged children living with their father.
Source: Wilson and Daley in Child Abuse and neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, 1987)
7. Premarital pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and absent fathers are the most common predictors of child abuse.
Source: Smith, Hanson, and Noble, Child Abuse: Commission and Ommission, 1980.
8. 69% of victims of child sexual abuse came from homes where the biological father was absent.
Source: Gomes-Schwartz, Horowitz, and Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment, 1988.
9. Children are at particular risk. A 125 lb. woman is just as dangerous to a small child as is a 150 lb. man and the failure to admit that women can be violent has resulted in an increasingly tragic epidemic of child abuse.
Source: A study of child abuse in Lansing, MI. Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay in "Child Abuse and Neglect", Volume 8, 1984.
10. Society's failure to address abuse by women has some rather tragic results:
The cycle of family violence will not end until we are willing to treat not only men who initiate violent acts, but the women also. No adequate treatment programs for abusive women exist.
The man, generally being larger than the woman, is more likely to inflict physical injury when he responds to abuse from the woman, but the woman is more likely to overcome the size advantage by using a weapon.
Source: National Crime Survey, Census Bureau in "Spouse Abuse: A Two-Way Street", Warren Farrell, Ph.D., USA Today. June 29, 1994/
TEENAGE SEXUALITY AND SOLE CUSTODY/FATHER ABSENCE
1. Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 111% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages
Source: Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, "Single Mothers and Their Children" (Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1986).
2. Teenage girls who grow up without their fathers tend to have sex earlier. A 15-year-old who has lived with her mother only, for example, is three times as likely to lose her virginity before her sixteenth birthday as one who lived with both parents.
Source: Lee Smith, "The New Wave of Illegitimacy", Fortune 18 (April 1994), pp. 81-94. Also see Susan Newcomer and J. Richard Udry, "Parental Marital Status Effects on Adolescent Sexual Behavior", Journal of Marriage and the Family (May 1987), pp.235-240.
3. Adolescent females between the ages of 15 and 19 years reared in homes without fathers are significantly more likely to engage in premarital sex than adolescent females reared in homes with both a mother and a father.
Source: John O. G. Billy, Karin L. Brewster, and William R. Grady,"Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behavior of Adolescent Women", Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994), pp. 381-404.
4. Girls from fatherless homes are 111% (over two times) more likely to have an unwed pregnancy.
Source: Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992; Hetherington, 1972
5. Girls from fatherless homes are 92% (nearly two times) more likely to divorce.
Source: Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992;Hetherington, 1972.
LOW ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SOLE CUSTODY
1. "In Summary, 30% of the children in the present study experienced a marked decrease in their academic performance following parental separation, and this was evident three years later. Access to both parents seemed to be the most protective factor, in that it was associated with better academic adjustment... Moreover, data revealed that non-custodial parents (mostly fathers) were very influential in their children's development....These data also support the interpretation that the more time a child spends with the non-custodial parent, the better the overall adjustment of the child.
Source: Factors Associated with Academic Achievement in Children Following Separation, L. Bisnaire, P.h.D.; P. Firestone, P.h.D.; D. Rynard, MA Sc American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(1), January, 1990.
2. Children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and receive lower grades in school. Children in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of high school as children from two parent families.
Source: J.B. Stedman, L.H. Salganik, and C.A. Celebuski, "Dropping Out: The Educational Vulnerability of At-Risk Youth," Congressional Research Service Report No. 88-417 EPW Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Library of Congress, 1988).
3. Students without fathers or with stepfathers were less likely to have peers who thought it important to behave well in school.
Source: Nicholas Zill and Christine Winquist Nord, "Running in Place: How American Families are Faring in a Changing Economy and An Individualistic Society" (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Inc., 1994).
4. Children who exhibited violent misbehavior in school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers.
Source: Jonathan L. Sheline, Betty J. Skipper, and W. Eugene Broadhead, "Risk Factors for Violent Behavior in Elementary School Boys: Have You Hugged Your Child Today?" American Journal of Public Health 84 (1994), pp. 661-663.
5. Nationally, 15.3% of children living with a never married mother and 10.7% of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school ,compared with only 4.4% of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey," Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (1991). 67. Children who were living with both biological parents were nearly two to four times less likely than other children to have been expelled or suspended from school (4%vs. 9-15%)
Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).
CHILD SUPPORT
1. According to Census Bureau data, fathers with joint physical custody of their children, pay more of their child support - 90% - compared with 79% for fathers with visitation rights, and 44% for fathers with neither arrangement.
Source: Nicholas Zill, Analysis of Census Bureau Data, paper presented at the Children's Rights Council National Conference, Bethesda, MD, April 1993.
2. 90% of fathers with joint custody pay all of their child support on time and in full.
Source: Current Population Report, issued September 1991; Child Support & Alimony: 1989 Series P60, No 173, pages 6 & 7 of the 1989 Census.
3. Where there is visitation, almost 80% of fathers pay all their support on time, and in full.
Source: 1991 Census Bureau; see also Current Population Report, issued September 1991; Child Support & Alimony: 1989 Series P60, No 173, pages 6 & 7 of the 1989 Census.
4. 51% of fathers paying no child support had annual incomes of less than $12,310.
Source: 1995 report to the Wisconsin Governor's Commission on Families and Children.
5. 56% of fathers who owe support "cannot afford to pay the amount ordered".
Source: 1992: The General Accounting Office.
6. 14% of fathers who owe child support are dead.
Source: 1992: The General Accounting Office.
7. A significant portion of unpaid child support is owed by fathers who are imprisoned.
Source: Steward A. Miller, senior legislative analyst for American Fathers Coalition in Washington D.C.
8. Almost 80% of custodial mothers receive a child support award.
Source: 1991 Federal Office of Income Security Policy.
9. Less than 30% of custodial fathers receive a child support award
Source: 1991 Federal Office of Income Security Policy
10. About 47% of those mothers ordered to pay child support totally default on their obligation.
Source: Steward A. Miller, senior legislative analyst for American Fathers Coalition in Washington D.C.
compiled 8/1/96 by co-founders of For Kids' Sake
For Kids' Sake
Patrick & Lynn Kempen
compiled 8/1/96 by co-founders of For Kids' Sake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
