Men's Rights Agency - Fatherless Children
The Sydney Morning Herald has recently published articles written by Adele Horin and Kathleen Swinbourne, Women's Electoral Lobby, that appear to be attempting to justify sole parent (female) status. Not content with self-justification stones are being cast about the "deadbeat dads who supposedly "vanish from their children's lives after divorce..." only to be seen again on CSA most wanted listings. Or according to Swinbourne (SMH 3/12/97) women are not to blame at all, just men who are not supportive of their family, and don't forget the companies that do not have family friendly workplace practices, but that again is the man's fault because he hasn't asked for it!
This is MRA's response.....don't hold your breath waiting for the SMH to publish!
Adele Horin (SMH 6/11/97) is quite right. The pendulum has swung too far.
Too many families are being torn apart as a result of society’s indifference and government legislation that actively supports and condones the removal of fathers from their children’s lives.
As a result nearly million children are being raised in single parent families, [mostly with their mother] or not with both natural parents.
A considerable body of research conducted both here and overseas such as the Exeter Study; the National Child Development survey conducted by Dr. Martin Richards; an Australian study by Paul Amato; British social scientist, Patricia Morgan [1995] and USA researchers McClanahan and Sandfur, just to name a few, have found that children in single parent families are more likely to underachieve at school, have more problems with drugs/alcohol leading to police involvement and are more likely to fail in their own relationships.
In her article Ms Horin claims the fault lies with “deadbeat dads”, who vanish from their children’s lives.
Certainly statistics show that up to 50% of fathers will lose contact with their children, in less than two years, or have little chance to spend time with them. But few fathers “walk away” willingly and the majority pay child support unless unemployed. The difficulties placed before a father in trying to maintain a relationship with his children are enormous, even when the other parent encourages contact. Seeing your children 26 times a year as is the “standard norm” recommended by the Family Court and its counsellors is hardly sufficient time to maintain a close loving, caring relationship with your children. And as the children grow older time spent with Dad inevitability begins to compete for prominence with other activities... time with friends or sporting commitments. What can one expect when they are essentially living separate lives?
Then on the other hand there are many mothers who deliberately thwart access to the children. So prolific is this problem, the American’s have even given it a name, “Parentectomy”...the forcible removal of one parent by the other from their children’s lives.
Typical tactics, start with a domestic violence order, encouraged by the various DV groups as a means to separate parents. Many of these orders are without foundation and are only used as the recommended means to forcibly evict dad and prevent access to the children. Misuse of domestic violence orders has been noted by senior members of the judiciary, Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Stan Deer,(Queensland), Pat O’Shane (NSW) Mr. Justice Moss of the Family Court.
If the father successfully pursues access through the Family Court, then a persistent parent can resort to “dropping the atomic bomb” - false allegations of child sexual/physical abuse. Even though there is no substantiation of the allegations, the Family Court has the option to use a precedent established in 1988 in the M & M case of “lingering doubt” to totally prevent access or enforce “supervised access”. A demeaning procedure for any father, especially one who’s innocent.
Turning to the practicalities, having spent $1500 - $2000 defending a DV application; $2000 plus for the interim Family Court hearing; a further $10,000 for the final (say 2 day) hearing; $15,000 upwards to fight false allegations which involve additional professional services of a counsellor or child psychologist and separate representative - available monies are rapidly dissipated, if they were ever there in the first place. Legal Aid dollars for family separation are apportioned in the ratio of 2 to 1 in favour of the mother and unlikely to be granted to a working father.
Then having spent the past eighteen month (minimum estimate) to gain final contact orders, the mother may decide to move......and so the process starts all over again!
If the father is not destitute by now, the excessively high levels of child support that take up to 36% of his gross income, depending on the number of children will complete the scenario. He’ll be fortunate is he has enough money left to pay for his own basic necessities, let alone providing for his children if he’s lucky enough to have established contact.
It is hardly surprising many fathers become dispirited, not only in regard to their own feelings but for their children’s sake. Some “walk away” not wishing to prolong the constant hurt and pressure placed upon their children by continued litigation. Especially in the case of false allegations where the children are subjected to interview after interview with social workers probing for a “disclosure”, accompanied by invasive medical examinations.
But whose to blame, the individuals themselves who see personal benefits in separation or current social attitudes that encourage people to put individual happiness over and above consideration of what’s best for their family
Unfortunately for the family, society has, since the 1970’s, shifted from considering the good of the whole [family] to the self serving pursuit of individual happiness. The women’s movement in seeking the just goal of equality has neglected to emphasis the rights a woman can expect are also inextricably entwined with responsibilities as well. Too often we hear of wives leaving their husbands, taking the children only to take up residence with another lover. It is generally acknowledged that two thirds of family separations are initiated by the wife. Our figures show a much higher level of 90% and of those, 80% of women appear to have found life with their current husband unsatisfying or boring and already have another lover, male or female, waiting in the wings.
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, a well-respected US social historian examines the problems in her recently published book, The Divorce Culture. She traces the change in attitudes and points particularly to the ready acceptance of counsellors and psychologists to support and promote the individual happiness concept whilst ignoring basic responsibilities that one undertakes when deciding to have children.
Dafoe advocates dismantling the “divorce culture” because it has failed to produce the benefits women thought they would gain ... greater freedom ..now constrained by caring for children without the support of the father; financial independence...most have merely exchanged dependence on their husband to dependence on government support and the welfare system.
Dafoe believes the outcome in America “has contributed to greater economic insecurity and poverty among women and children and it has been a principal generator of unequal opportunities and outcomes for children”. This is not necessarily the case for all separated families in Australia. If a family was living on the breadline before separation, welfare payments will not lift the circumstances to any great level, but do maintain the status quo with one less adult mouth to feed. Alternatively, depending on the level of accumulated family assets and the father’s income some women can enhance their individual financial security substantially. One certain result is increased levels of poverty and despair amongst the disenfranchised fathers of Australia, resulting in high suicide levels that have to date been ignored.
Nearly 1800 adult men committed suicide in 1995 [ABS Stats}, many as a result of family breakdown.
The consequences of society’s ready acceptance of divorce as an individual’s lifestyle choice has resulted in a burgeoning welfare dependency; a growing bureaucracy controlling parent’s responsibilities and obligations to their children
Blame is not appropriate, solutions are needed to solve this crisis. Dafoe suggests that once we accept “divorce is a family and social event involving other stakeholders and imposing costs on others we can begin to think and talk about high levels of divorce involving children as a social problem that must be addressed rather than as an expression of individual freedom that cannot be infringed.”
Sue Price MRA
To:
mra@ecn.net.au
or write to P.O. Box 28, Waterford Qld 4133 Australia
Fax: (07) 3200 8769 Tel: (07) 3805 5611
Men's Rights Agency
P/L ACN 063 925
566
A non-profit organisation helping men and their
families
1997 © Copyright MRA Pty Ltd
Viewers are welcome to use the information on these pages, but should acknowledge their source as being Men's Rights Agency Internet Site. Visitors to this site should also be aware that views expressed in the articles are not necessarily the views of MRA
