Some prevailing "factoids"
Various ideas, expressed by politicians and in the Family Court, appear to have an impact on policy development and legal decisions in New Zealand. They are questionable, and therefore referred to here as "factoids" rather than facts. Here is a collection of such factoids, with points which could be raised in response:
1. A reluctance to say that fathers are important because it might upset solo-mothers
It should not be assumed that there is only one active parent just because there is a "single parent household". Parents are considered to be non-custodial if the children stay with them for less than 40 per cent of the nights. This could mean that they are with them for every weekend and more, or, in other words, the non-custodial parent might have more active contact time with the children than the "solo-parent".
There is nothing wrong with stressing that fathers are important even if a couple have separated. While this might upset some mothers, we have to consider why the father is not involved. There are those who have deliberately excluded the fathers through what is known as parental alienation, but this is a form of child abuse (see Blaikie E O K (1994) "Emotional abuse of children: some responses from the Family Court" Butterworths Family Law Journal, March, pp.77-82). It is not clear why we should be concerned about upsetting child abusers.
If it is the father who refuses to be involved or is unsuitable, then the problem lies either with the father, or the nature of the relationship between the parents. In either event, it is appropriate that attention be drawn to the problem, rather than pretending that it does not matter.
If it upsets solo-mothers to say that fathers have a contribution to make, then isn't it equally upsetting to fathers for this point to be denied? This is of particular concern for many fathers as it represents what they perceive to be the attitude of the courts and the government.
2. Fathers are not important, judging by past experience of families where fathers were absent at work
In the one situation, a child grows up with a father who is spending long hours away from home to provide financially for them all. He is there for Christmas, birthdays, and family gatherings. He is there at weekends. If he is ill, he is cared for at home. They go on holidays together as a family. His position and contribution are supported by the mother.
In the other situation, given current policies, the situation is quite different. The father is not there for these activities. He may be struggling to see the child and to play an active parenting role. This could be in the face of open hostility from the mother (backed up by the Family Court). The child might feel compelled to take sides, or to reject the father. The father is unlikely to have any effective say in family decisions, but will be compelled to work and pay to support the family anyway.
Lapsley discusses domestic violence in terms of the "atmosphere" created (Lapsley H, 1993, The Measurement of Family Violence: A Critical Review of the Literature, Social Policy Agency, for discussion, see here). This does not depend solely on the amount of time a person is in the home and can have an effect even when the person is absent. If these negative dimensions are recognised, then for consistency we should also acknowledge the positive contribution that a father can make through his actions, even when he is contributing to the family through working elsewhere.
The two examples set for the child as to what to expect in future life are not comparable, nor are the prevailing rights and responsibilities between family members.
In addition, it seems unduly harsh to say to fathers who have been and wish to be active parents that they are not important on the basis of such tenuous examples. We could extend the reasoning further to downplay the role of mothers by talking about cases where they were absent, even taking cases where neither parent was present. Should we use the example of boarding schools to assert that neither parent is important? Presumably we could reason that children should be brought up communally, with parents paying for this and seeing their children once every few weeks.
3. Fathers walked out on their children a generation ago, so we need not support separated fathers now.
Some of today's fathers are the children of those earlier fathers. Perhaps they don't want to repeat the same mistakes.
There were fewer fathers in that situation then than there are now, and the "common wisdom" of the time was that a complete break was most appropriate. This, linked with the social stigma of divorce, would have made it very hard for fathers to continue to be involved.
It is not clear what collective responsibility today's fathers have for the actions of a previous generation. There is also a very different approach to women's entry into the workforce, although a generation ago far fewer women showed any interest in a career. The reasoning in the two situations is inconsistent.
4. Domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men
This is based on some sources of partner violence data. Numerous studies of partner violence report surveys which indicate either that women are as violent as men, or that women are more violent than men. An excellent book on women's violence is Pearson P (1997) When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence New York: Viking (reviewed here).
New Zealand data showing women to have higher perpetration rates and lower victimisation rates can be found in Magdol L, Moffitt TS, Caspi A, Newman DL, Pagan J, and Silva PA, "Gender Differences in Partner Violence in a Birth Cohort of 21-Year-Olds: Bridging the Gap Between Clinical and Epidemiological Approaches", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1997, Vol. 65, No.1, pp.68-78. See in particular, tables 1 and 2 (also mentioned here).
It is also inappropriate to focus only on partner violence, particularly if a major object is the "best interest of the child". Child abuse is an area where women figure largely.
US child abuse is discussed in US Department of Health and Human Services (1998) Child Maltreatment 1996: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Tables 2.4 and 2.8 together show that there are markedly more victims than perpetrators in the categories of physical abuse, neglect and emotional maltreatment, with less of a difference for medical neglect and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is the only category with a majority of male perpetrators, but still 28.5 per cent of perpetrators were female. The data show that women were 55.3% of child physical abuse perpetrators, 71.9% for neglect, 78.3% for medical neglect, and 57% for emotional maltreatment. There is also a "fact sheet", summarising the main points of the report.
5. Children need one home base for continuity and routine
This argument is used to suggest that shared custody is undesirable for children. However it is fine for them to go to day-care, kindergarten, grandma's, school, etc.. The effect of this approach is to deny non-custodial fathers the opportunity to establish and participate in any routines with the children, hence their relationship with the children atrophies over time.
6. Children should stay with whoever was their primary caregiver
This ignores the possibility that parenting roles change over time, that the ability to parent may depend on family circumstances, and that it might be appropriate to promote options which facilitate changes in custody as the children get older (rather than the current ones whereby the non-custodial parent is often "phased out"). There is some more discussion on who is the "best" parent here.
7. The Domestic Violence Act benefits children
It is presumed that the removal of a risk of violence by the father, even if slight, outweighs any cost to the child arising from the loss of his parenting. This, and the failure to deter or penalise false allegations by mothers, indicates that the parenting contribution of fathers is not considered important. If fathers do have a real contribution to make, then many children will be penalised by the implementation of the Act.
Stuart Birks
8 June 1998
Last modified 23 December 1998