Fatherhood faces stacked deck in family court

Fatherhood faces stacked deck in family court
Phyllis Schlafly

January 31, 2005

It's not just gay adoptions that threaten the right of children to be raised
in traditional two-parent, mother-father homes. A threat also comes from
father-phobic family courts that deprive children of their fathers.

Under no-fault divorce, equality is the rule: Either spouse can terminate a
marriage without the other spouse's consent and without any fault committed
by the cast-off spouse or even alleged by the spouse initiating the divorce.

When it comes to determining child custody, however, sexism is the rule. By
making allegations of fault (true or false, major or petty) against the
male, the female can usually get the family court to grant her their
children and his money.

Despite an extended string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the
fundamental right of parents to the care, custody and control of their
children (reaffirmed in a 2000 case), and despite a very high standard that
the government must meet in order to terminate parental legal rights,
fathers are routinely denied due process when it comes to determining child
custody after divorce.

Family courts use a highly subjective rule called the best interest of the
child as recommended by court-appointed child-custody evaluators or
psychotherapists. There is no requirement that they have first-hand
experience with raising children, and they are allowed to use their own
personal prejudices to overrule the parents.

But why aren't parents the ones best able to decide what is in the best
interest of the child?

Family courts routinely rubber-stamp child-custody evaluators who recommend
maternal custody with fathers getting so-called visitation only every other
weekend. This despite the mountain of social science research presented in
Warren Farrell's book, "Father and Child Reunion" (Tarcher; $24.95), which
proves that the best interest of the child of divorced parents is usually to
give the child equally shared parent time.

Two dozen different measures listed in Farrell's book indicate that equally
shared custody is better for children than maternal custody alone. Farrell's
book explains how most fathers provide benefits that mothers usually don't.

Yet, family courts typically rule as though fathers have no value except
their money, and routinely banish fathers (who have not been proven to have
committed any misdeed) from the lives of their children, except for every
other weekend. Farrell describes how this typical custody pattern is a loser
for the child, causing intense feelings of deprivation and depressive
behavior.

In his new book "Twice Adopted" (Broadman & Holman: $24.99), Michael Reagan
tells how, as the child of divorced parents, he only got to see his father,
former President Ronald Reagan, on alternating Saturdays. He wrote, "To an
adult two weeks is just two weeks. But to a child, having to wait two weeks
to see your father is like waiting forever."

American courts are presumed to be based on an adversarial system with each
side arguing its best case, subject to standards of due process, evidence
and proof. Somehow, that doesn't function in family courts.

Some divorce lawyers advise wives to manipulate the process by using a
three-step technique: (1) make domestic violence or child abuse allegations,
(2) demand full custody, (3) collect large amounts of child support,
alimony, and legal fees.

If the father objects to this process, the wife can make more accusations.
The evaluators then call it a high-conflict divorce and give custody to the
wife, declaring that shared parenting won't work.

If the husband doesn't acquiesce, he is reprimanded by the court for "not
buying into the process." In trying to defend himself against accusations,
the father is denied the basic rights of a criminal defendant such as
presumption of innocence and the necessity that the accuser provide proof
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Family courts force fathers to submit to interrogations and evaluations by
court-chosen child-custody evaluators. Fathers are forced to pay the high
fees of these private practitioners whom they have not hired, whose services
they do not want, and whose credentials and bias are suspect.

The children are also subjected to these evaluators who attempt to turn the
children against their parents in unrecorded interviews.

One of the most un-American aspects of family court procedure is the
sentencing of fathers to attend re-education classes and psychotherapy
sessions to induce them to admit fault and to indoctrinate them in
government-approved parenting behavior. The court-approved psychotherapists
report back to the court on the father's supposed progress, and his
attendance at these Soviet-style re-education sessions must continue until
he conforms.

A cozy relationship exists among local lawyers and court-approved
psychotherapists who recommend each other for this highly paid work of
making evaluations, counseling, and conducting re-education classes. The
psychotherapists decline to challenge each other's recommendations or
question their competence, and lawyers decline to cross-examine them,
because they all want to continue the profitable practice of referring
business to each other and collecting fees from fathers who are desperate to
see their own children.


---------------------------------------------------------
"The most terrifying words in the English language a
I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
--- Ronald Reagan