The Fatherphobia Of
Family Courts
By
Phyllis Schlafly
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"
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" 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.
Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The
Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).
The
Best
Parent
is
BOTH
Parents!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
We appreciate your visit, and value
your feedback! How can we make our site better? It would be very
helpful to know how you found us, what you were looking for when you
stopped by, whether you found the information here helpful, and what
suggestions you may have for future enhancements. If you experienced
any technical problems accessing portions of the site, If you found
a mistake, or have a suggestion as to how we can make this site
better, please let us know. Thanks!
Ron Jagannathan
Webmaster
& Communications, fathersforvirginia.org
