| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 165.1 | intro from fathernet | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:36 | 17 |
| About Research on Men and Children
FatherNet is collecting reports of applied research, demographic
information, policy analysis, and polls and opinion surveys related
to men's relationships with children.
This directory will include material on fathering, father-absence,
and paternity issues; on the non-paternal roles men play in
children's lives, such as an adult friend, uncle, mentor, big
brother, teacher, coach or employer; and gender issues, social
norms and cultural traditions as they relate to men's roles and
relationships.
If you are aware of material that should be included in this
directory, or would like to suggest new content areas, please
contact Jan at [email protected] or 612-626-1212.
.
|
| 165.2 | 1988 Young Unwed Fathers and Welfare Reform (1 of 2) | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:37 | 410 |
|
1988 Young Unwed Fathers and Welfare Reform
TITLE:: YOUNG UNWED FATHERS AND WELFARE REFORM
CYFERNET ID::IMPACT1
ENTRY DATE::
AUTHOR:: FAMILY IMPACT SEMINAR
ORGANIZATION:: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY
DOCUMENT TYPE:: PROCEEDINGS
DOCUMENT SIZE:: 55K or 24 PAGES
PART 1 OF 2 PARTS
To receive more information on the family impact seminar please
request CATALOG or OVERVIEW from the FAMILY_IMPACT section of
CYFERNET.
_________________________________________________________________
Young Unwed Fathers
and
Welfare Reform
November 18, 1988, U.S. Capitol, EF 100
Panelists: Rikki Baum, Office of Senator Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
Linda Mellgren, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation/HHS
Margaret Boeckmann, Office of Employment Policy,
Maryland Department of Human Resources
Moderator: Theodora Ooms, Director, Family Impact Seminar
_______________________________________________________________
Meeting Highlights ....................pages i to iv
Background Briefing Report.............pages 1 to 12
_______________________________________________________________
Young Unwed Fathers
and
Welfare Reform
Background Briefing Report
and
Meeting Highlights
Theodora Ooms and Lisa Herendeen
This policy seminar is one in a series of monthly seminars for
policy staff titled, Family Centered Social Policy: The Emerging
Agenda, conducted by the Family Impact Seminar, American
Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Research and Education
Foundation, 1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W., The Tenth Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/467-5114
This seminar was co-sponsored by the Consortium of Family
Organizations (COFO) and funded by the Charles Stewatt Mott
Foundation.
COFO Members:
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT)
American Home Economics Association (AHEA)
Family Resource Coalition (FRC)
Family Service America (FSA)
National Council on Family Relations (NCFR)
Copyright ~ 1990
The Family Impact Seminar (FIS), The AAMFT Research and Education
Foundation, Washington, D.C.
All Rights Reseved.
This Background Briefing Report may be photocopied for education,
teaching, and dissemination purposes provided that the proper
attribution is prominently displayed on the copies. If more than
50 copies are made, FIS must be notified in writing, prior to
duplication, of the number of copies to be made and the purpose of
the duplication.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Highlights of Seminar i-iv
Facts 1
Policy Developments 3
The Family Support Act 1988 (P.L. 100-485) 7
Family Impact Questions for Discussion 9
Selected References 10
Young Unwed Fathers
And
Welfare Reform
Highlights of the seminar meeting on held on Friday November 18,
1988, U.S. Capitol (a supplement to the Background Briefing Report)
Will the recently passed welfare reform bill encourage unwed
fathers to establish paternity, pay child support, get jobs, and
become self-sufficient individuals who do well by their children?
Participants at the seminar, "Young Unwed Fathers and Welfare
Reform," sponsored by the Family Impact Seminar discussed the
implications of the Family Support Act of 1988 for young unwed
fathers.
Summary of Panelists' Presentations
Rikki Baum, legislative assistant to Senator Moynihan, the key
architect of the Family Support Act of 1988, confirmed that passage
of the bill had been a difficult struggle and a number of
compromises were made in the conference committee. She summarized
the key features of the law which she believed would have
significant impact on the problem of welfare dependency:
1. Strengthened child support enforcement, through automatic
wage-withholding of the absent parent;
2. Required states to use uniform guidelines for setting child
support awards;
3. Established the new Jobs Opportunity and Basic Skills (JOBS)
program.
Baum emphasized that the JOBS program would replace the current
Work Incentive Program (WIN), established in 1967, which has been
largely ineffective primarily due to the nature of its funding.
WIN has depended on annual federal appropriations which, over the
years, have been significantly cut and was only funded at a level
of $92.5 million in FY '88. Moreover, state program operators have
never known how much money they would have to work with from year
to year. The JOBS program, by contrast, is a capped entitlement
program set at $600 million in 1989 rising to $1.3 billion by 1995.
While the actual expenditures on the program will depend on the
extent to which states front-end their matching dollars, the
federal "carrot" is a generous one. A second new feature is that,
unlike WIN, these monies can be spent on education and classroom
training, not just job search, job training and placement. This is
critical for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
population, two-thirds of whom are illiterate. Third, the JOBS
program requires participation for mothers of children 3 years old,
and at state option, mothers of children over 1 year of age.
Fourth, the targeting of 50% of the funds on those most at risk of
becoming long-term recipients helps to prevent some of the
"creaming" which has characterized most employment and training
programs to date.
Baum identified three features of the bill which could
potentially affect young unwed fathers: 1. The requirement of
states to collect social security numbers of both parents; 2. The
requirement to raise the rates of paternity establishment; 3. The
opportunity in five states to permit absent parents to enroll in
the JOBS program. The original Senate bill had allowed any state
to target any absent parents for the JOB programs but, as a result
of the conference agreement, the Act now only permits five states
to apply for a waiver and special demonstration funds for this
purpose.
Linda Mellgren, of the Office of Income Security, ASPE/HHS focused
on implementation of the new Act and how it could affect the
population of young unwed fathers. She pointed out that nothing in
the bill specifically requires states to focus on unwed fathers, it
is left largely to the states to decide how much effort and
resources to devote to targeting this population. She identified
ten features of the new law which could affect young unwed fathers
as follows.
1. The requirement that states set mandatory guidelines for support
awards provides an opportunity to allow token or in-kind support in
lieu of cash awards. This has been recommended as a way of
bringing the unwed father into the system even when he is not yet
earning significant income.
2. The performance standards for paternity establishment is a step
in the right direction but will not necessarily increase
establishment for young unwed fathers because the standards do not
require major increases in the rate of establishments and young
unwed fathers are a low-priority category in many states.
3. The provision to reimburse the state for 90% of the cost for
tests of paternity establishment will be useful and should
encourage greater use of the more reliable and expensive genetic
tests.
4. The requirement to develop regulations requiring states to react
promptly to child support requests could be very helpful in
situations of unwed fatherhood, since the father is usually living
in the community around the time of the child's birth.
5. The effect of the requirement to collect social security numbers
is very difficult to predict in situations of out-of-wedlock
childbearing. State laws vary considerably with respect to due
process provided to the unwed father. Moreover, collecting the
father's social security number before paternity is legally
established creates an ambiguous legal situation which is certain
to be tested in the courts. (A participant later pointed out that
some young people do not have social security numbers because they
have never been in the work force or are illegal immigrants.)
6. The AFDC-Unemployed Parent provision, which requires states to
extend assistance to a family where the father is present but
unemployed, could help this population because it does not make a
distinction between married and unmarried parents. It will make
program services, such as workfare and community service, available
to the father as well as the mother. By extending services to
two-parent families, it is hoped that the provision will encourage
young men to live with their families.
7. While the bill only encourages states to establish civil
procedures for paternity to make the process less intimidating and
simpler, the Department might be able to use this provision to
strengthen its regulatory requirements.
8. States will be required to collect additional child support
data. Previously no information on the number of AFDC children who
need child support, or the number of cases requesting support was
collected. With additional data it will be easier to determine the
need for support and how well states are responding to this need.
9 &10. In addition to the absent parent demonstration in JOBS, the
bill allows for two types of demonstration programs that may
eliminate some barriers to an unwed father's participation. The
first would allow for AFDC/UP to be offered without the requirement
that the father has been employed for three out of the last six
months, thus eliminating a barrier to young fathers who have not
been in the work force. The second type of program allows states
to apply to use funds for job training and placement programs that
could target young unwed fathers with incomes below poverty.
Margaret Boeckmann, Director of the Office of Employment Policy,
Maryland Department of Human Resources, described their office's
experience in conducting a pilot absent parents employment program
using state funds.
The program was originally conceived in 1986 by a Harford County
judge and given financial backing after the Governor's Task Force
on Teen Pregnancy recommended that teen fathers be targeted for
training. Ruth Massinga, Secretary of the Department of Human
Resources and Chair of the Task Force, has given priority in her
department to the unwed population. The demonstration project
presently operates in Harford County and Prince George's County.
The local Private Industry Council is under contract to provide
program services and the Office of Child Support Enforcement
coordinates referrals and client follow-up.
This demonstration program aims to increase the earning capacity
of unemployed or underemployed absent parents so that they can meet
their court-ordered child support payments and hopes to help reduce
state and federal welfare expenditures by increasing the economic
self-sufficiency of AFDC mothers through additional child support
collection. The program originally hoped to target men under 25.
However, it has been attracting older men whose average age is 27.
Part of the success of the Harford program is due to the
seriousness of the Harford judge who tells non-paying fathers,
"either get a job or sign up for a job training program and if you
fail to do this you will go to jail." In Harford County, the
fathers are signed up for employment training services by a
counselor in paternity court right away. For a variety of reasons,
the newer Prince George's County program has not yet seen the kind
of success that Harford county has seen.
A problem that both programs face is getting young fathers
involved. Both young and old fathers will often take temporary,
unstable work just to avoid participation. There appears to be two
different groups of absent fathers in the program and they need
different types of services. The older men need training and jobs
and the "stick" approach seems more effective. Younger unwed
fathers often lack more than just a job. They may have educational
deficiencies, fail to understand their responsibilities, and have
drug and alcohol problems.
Evaluation of the program has been limited so far due to lack of
follow-up information. In the future the program would like to be
able to document what type of work the trainees get after they
leave, what their wages are and how long they stay at their jobs.
The staff hopes to begin a third program in either Frederick
County or Baltimore County by applying for federal demonstration
money provided by the welfare reform act. However, different
communities need different approaches. In Baltimore city, with a
very high rate of out-of-wedlock parenting, the program would use
"a carrot approach" rather than "a stick approach." Courts have to
be able to back up a threat of throwing non-paying fathers in jail
but Baltimore jails are too overcrowded to back up that threat.
The approach in Baltimore would be to offer incentives to the unwed
mothers and fathers to get the fathers involved in the program.
Points made in the discussion
l We need to focus on the psychological and economic benefits to
the child of establishing paternity and encouraging paternal
responsibility, not just the economic benefits to the state.
Health care professionals who work with young mothers during their
pregnancy may be a key group to educate about these benefits.
l Was one of the goals of the Act to encourage marriage? Yes, Baum
said that was definitely part of the argument made in favor of
requiring all states to offer AFDC/UP. In addition, scholars have
suggested that helping unwed fathers obtain employment might
increase marriage rates.
l Not all unwed fathers are young, nor do they remain unwed. Some
marry and have other children to support.
l How would this new law deal with a "de facto" father who is
living with the child's mother and wishes to take on responsibility
for the child but is not the biological father? Would he be
eligible for the JOBS program in the five demonstration states? It
was pointed out that AFDC-UP is available irrespective of marital
status.
l How does this bill prevent the "take the best, forget the rest"
approach to welfare employment programs? Baum noted that the
bill's effort to target funds to long-term welfare recipients is
designed to avoid such creaming.
l It is important to remember that the circumstances and needs of
young unwed fathers are often different from those of the older,
once-married absent father. The punitive approach may work and be
appropriate for the latter group but incentives and different kinds
of assistance are needed for the former.
l There are limits to the ability of government policy to legislate
charity and responsibility and "touch the heart" of the unwed
father.
l Our goal should be to achieve two stable incomes, one from the
mother and one from the father, so that a child may have a decent
standard of living.
l Does the new Act recognize that some AFDC women and/or their
children are in danger of physical violence from their child's
father? Yes, Baum mentioned the "good cause" exemptions from the
requirement to locate the absent father in the current program.
She added that research suggests that such cases represent a very
small percentage.
l The key to motivating and working with the young father is to
have people at the ground level who have the skills, training and
ability to communicate and work with this difficult population.
But how can these front line people get the training they need?
Baum said that although training of program staff is not
specifically mentioned in the legislation, states are free to use
administrative monies for training.
Additional Reference Capital Ideas, a newletter publication of the
Center for Policy Research, National Governor's Association,
August, 1987 issue has information on a few states which are
conducting demonstration employment programs for young absent
fathers. Available from the Office of Public Affairs, NGA, 444 N.
Capitol St, Suite 250, Washington, D.C. 20001. Cost $3.00.
_________________________________________________________________
KEYWORDS::FAMILY IMPACT SEMINAR UNWED FATHERS
AVAILABILITY::
For more information concerning CYFERNET please contact the Youth
Development Information Center at the National Agricultural Library
at (301) 504-6400 or [email protected].
____________________________________________________
.
|
| 165.3 | 1988 Young Unwed Fathers and Welfare Reform (2 of 2) | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:40 | 805 |
|
1988 Young Unwed Fathers and Welfare Reform
TITLE:: YOUNG UNWED FATHERS AND WELFARE REFORM
CYFERNET ID::IMPACT1
ENTRY DATE::
AUTHOR:: FAMILY IMPACT SEMINAR
ORGANIZATION:: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY
DOCUMENT TYPE:: PROCEEDINGS
DOCUMENT SIZE:: 55K or 24 PAGES
PART 2 OF 2 PARTS
To receive more information on the family impact seminar please
request CATALOG or OVERVIEW from the FAMILY_IMPACT section of
CYFERNET.
YOUNG UNWED FATHERS AND WELFARE REFORM
Background Briefing Report
FACTS
Facts about out-of-wedlock childbearing provide the essential
background to an understanding of the policy issues related to
unwed fatherhood and welfare reform. There is a wealth of data
available on childbearing trends and characteristics of young unwed
mothers, and it has been compiled in several useful publications.
Much less is known about young unwed fathers.
Adolescent Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing (The secondary sources we
primarily draw upon here, listed in the references, are: Hayes,
ed. 1987; Pittman and Adams, Jan/Feb. 1988; Smollar and Ooms, 1988)
l In 1985, 22% of all registered live births were to unmarried
women. Of these about one-third were to teenagers.
l Forty five percent of births to white teenagers (including
Hispanics) and 90% of births to black teens were out-of-wedlock.
l By the time they are eighteen, 21% of white and 41% of black
young women have become pregnant (at least once). And 7% of white,
26% of black and 14% of Hispanic 18year-olds have given birth.
l Black 15-19 year olds are over four times as likely to give
birth while unmarried as whites, and Hispanic teenagers are twice
as likely as whites to give birth while unmarried. Income is a
more significant factor in explaining differential rates of unwed
teen births than race (Besharov et al., 1987).
l The higher rates of black out-of-wedlock childbearing largely
reflect the fact that black adolescent women are much less likely
to marry either before or after a pregnancy. (This is not the case
for Hispanic teenage women who are more likely to be married than
whites.)
l High rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strongly
associated with poverty, school dropout and welfare. Black teen
mothers, however, are more likely to have completed high school
than whites. Hispanic teen mothers have the highest school
drop-out rates.
Welfare Dependency of Unwed Mothers (Sources used: Ellwood, 1988;
Pittman and Adams, 1988; Senate Finance Committee, 1988)
l Nearly half of all teen mothers and nearly three-quarters of
unmarried teen mothers, will receive
welfare assistance within four years of giving birth.
l Mothers receiving AFDC who gave birth out of wedlock as teens
were the group at highest risk of becoming long-term welfare
recipients. Forty percent of young never-married mothers who
entered the welfare program when their child was less than 3 years
old spent 10 years on AFDC.
l Children born out of wedlock comprise the largest sub-group of
the welfare population. In 1986, 48.9% of AFDC children were born
to unmarried parents as compared to 36% whose parents were
divorced or separated.
Profile of Young Unwed Fathers.
The information presently available about young unwed fathers comes
from several small, unrepresentative studies of young fathers and
one national study, the National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Force
Behavior of Youth (NLS). In general, responses to survey questions
related to marital history and fertility are much less reliable
from male respondents than females. (Secondary sources primarily
used here: Bureau of the Census, 1987; Lerman, 1987; Lerman and
Ooms, 1988; O.E.R.I., 1988; Adams and Pittman 1988; Smollar and
Ooms, 1988.)
Paternity. Two-thirds of the unmarried teenage women who gave
birth provided no information about the baby's father on the birth
certificate. However, in 1984 nearly one-half of all 19-20 year
olds who reported in a nationally representative survey that they
were fathers, were not married to their child's mother.
Unwed Fathers' Age. It is estimated that about 70% of the fathers
of children born to teen mothers are 20 years or older. On the
average, male sexual partners of teenage women are at least two
years older than their partners, and many are in their mid to late
twenties.
Marriage. Recent decades have seen delays in marriage for all age
groups. Many young unwed parents eventually marry, though not
always to the parent of the first-born child. Unwed fatherhood is
largely a transition stage for young white and Hispanic men who are
eventually likely to marry the mother of at least one of their
children. However, unwed fatherhood more often ends up being a
permanent status for black men.
Living arrangements. In 1984, approximately 80% of never-married
young fathers (19-26 years old) were not living with their
children. Five percent of black unwed fathers, as compared with 1%
of whites, do live with their child but not with a spouse.
Sixty percent of these young unwed absent fathers were living with
at least one parent or other close relatives. Black and Hispanic
youth of all income levels are more likely to be living with their
parents or relatives than whites.
Employment and Income. Earnings of young adult males have fallen
steadily since 1970, both because young adult males are less likely
to have jobs and because wages have fallen in real terms.
Unemployment rates of young men aged 18-25 have risen considerably
over the last three decades and remain very high, especially for
black youth. In 1986, the overall unemployment rates for 20-24
year old white men was 9.2% and for black men, 23.5%. Unemployment
for white teenagers 16-19 years-old was 16.3% and for black teens,
39.3%. There seemed to be little difference, however, between the
employment status of unwed fathers and those who were not unwed
fathers (Lerman, 1986).
Patterns of youth employment are somewhat erratic as they enter and
exit from the labor force, and many work part time. Many do not
report their income, especially when gained illegally. However,
substantial proportions of black high school drop outs do not work
at all.
The median income of full-time, year-round, young adult male
workers aged 20-24 declined from $18,800 in 1970 to $14,150 in 1986
(in constant 1986 dollars). The median income of young unwed
fathers is much lower. However, the large majority of unwed
fathers live in their parental home and pool their income and
expenses. Family incomes of fathers living at home averaged about
$23,000 to 25,000. Family incomes of young unwed mothers averaged
about half of this amount (Lerman and Ooms, 1988).
Child Support. According to census data only 18% of unwed mothers
aged 18 and older have court-ordered child support awards as
compared with 82% of divorced and 43% of separated mothers. About
14% of unwed mothers reported in a government survey that they
actually received any support. However, several studies suggest
that unwed fathers provide, informally, more cash and in-kind
support than these official statistics represent. For example, in
a national survey conducted in 1984-85, 41% of absent unwed fathers
reported making some child support payments (Lerman, 1988). The
mean total reported payment for the year was $2,280, with white
fathers paying over three times as much cash support as blacks and
Hispanics. (The National Urban League has found a father's
willingness to pay child support to be a matter of income, not
race. Black fathers pay support as well or better than whites of
the same income level.) Of fathers who regularly visit their
child, 50% reported making child support payments.
Involvement and Visitation. Small scale in-depth studies suggest
that there is a substantial group of young unwed fathers who defy
the stereotype of the uncaring, "hit and run," unwed father. They
visit their child regularly, bring in-kind gifts and supplies and
may even provide child care (sometimes assisted by their parents).
Some were strongly committed to their child. Information from a
national survey (NLS) provides a sense of the proportion of unwed
fathers who are somewhat involved with their child. Over one-half
of the absent unwed fathers live within 10 miles of their child and
visit them at least once a week. White unwed fathers were more
likely than blacks and Hispanics to live far away from their child
(Lerman, 1988).
POLICY DEVELOPMENTS
Until a few years ago there was an almost total absence of any
focus on the needs, rights and obligations of young unwed fathers
in national discussions about federal and state policy concerned
with teen pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbearing, youth employment
and welfare reform. However, at the level of service delivery a
few health and social service programs were making efforts to reach
out to adolescent and young fathers.
Our major sources for the discussion of the salient policy issues
are the summary reports and background papers for two national
conferences: the first, in October 1986, was conducted by the
Family Impact Seminar and funded and sponsored by the federal
government (HHS & DOL) and the other, in September 1987, was
conducted by the Center for Support on Children and funded by the
Ford Foundation. (See Smollar and Ooms, 1988; and Kastner,
McKillop et al., 1988.)
In addition, there are a number of new books and articles reporting
on a small but growing body of research and program experience with
young fathers. (See especially Elster and Lamb, eds., 1986 and
Robinson, 1988.)
These publications reflect a growing consensus on the goals of
public policy, prevention and direct service programs directed
towards young unwed fathers. There remains, however, considerable
uncertainty and disagreement about the most appropriate and
effective strategies needed to accomplish these goals. Numerous
recommendations have been made for improving the process; some are
mentioned below. Many states are conducting trials and
demonstrations of some of these new ideas using state and/or
federal dollars.
Policy Goals and Assumptions There is general consensus on the
following goals and assumptions that should undergird policy
towards unwed fathers:
1. Unwed fathers need to be held responsible for their children
and to fulfill the minimum obligations of fatherhood: namely,
legally establishing their paternity and contributing financial
support.
2. Legal paternity establishment is nearly always in the best
interests of children, and it is their interests that should be
primary over others' interests (mother, father, the state). Young
people, their families and the general public need to be educated
about the benefits of establishing paternity as soon after the
birth as possible.
3. The major benefits to paternity establishment are:
-obtaining information about the father's medical history;
-allowing the child access to certain social security, military
dependent and other financial benefits that may become available
through the father;
-improving the child's economic well-being if child support
payments ensue;
-permitting a personal relationship to be established between child
and father.
4. Policy should recognize that the circumstances and needs of
absent young unwed fathers differ from those of absent divorced or
separated fathers. Program approaches that enable and empower
unwed fathers to meet their responsibilities are likely to be more
effective and appropriate than punitive approaches.
5. These goals cannot be achieved through any single, narrow
categorical program but require coordinated action between several
public programs at federal and state levels, including the child
support enforcement system, the AFDC program, Labor Department job
programs and adolescent pregnancy and parenthood programs. In
addition, information and training about these issues needs to be
provided to a range of human service professionals working in
public and private health and social service sectors. (See Smollar
Ooms, 1988).
6. Traditionally, marriage was usually considered to be the
preferred and responsible solution to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Nowadays those who work with teen parents are doubtful whether
increasing "shotgun" marriages should be, or can be, a direct
policy goal. However, some believe that improving the employment
rates of young men would have an additional indirect benefit of
encouraging marriages and marital stability among young people,
especially blacks.
Unwed Fathers' Legal Rights and Obligations Paternity establishment
and unwed fathers' child support and visitation raise complex legal
and ethical issues about the competing rights and interests of the
biological father, custodial mother, their child, and of any
adoptive parents, step-parents and grandparents. These issues and
dilemmas are being wrestled with openly in the courts with regard
to situations of divorce, but are only beginning to surface with
regard to unwed parenthood.
In recent decades out-of-wedlock children have gained legal rights
denied them for centuries (e.g. with respect to inheritance, etc).
However, the legal status of their biological fathers remains
ambiguous and in transition.
Unwed fathers' obligation to provide economic support derives
solely from their biological parenthood and is firmly established
in federal child support law. But biological fathers have been
accorded few rights with respect to issues of adoption, custody,
visitation and pregnancy decisionmaking. These are generally a
matter of state law or state courts and hence vary considerably
between states.
In the past decade, Supreme Court decisions have clarified that
unwed fathers can have rights in adoption but only when they have
demonstrated parental interest; biology itself is not sufficient.
Two cases pending before the Court in the 1988/89 session may
expand the custodial and visitation rights of biological fathers
who have shown interest in their child.
Unwed fathers' rights to due process in paternity proceedings also
vary considerably and may be especially inadequate in the case of
minors.
Current Policy Strategies: Paternity Establishment Paternity
establishment is the critical first step in enforcing and
encouraging paternal financial responsibility, but its achievement
requires the active cooperation of both of the unwed young parents
(and often of their families).
The federal/state Child Support Enforcement Program (Title IV-D of
the Social Security Act) requires the states to establish paternity
as the necessary prerequisite to the collection of child support
for the largest component of the welfare population. When a needy
unwed mother applies for welfare assistance she must agree to
cooperate with the state in determining paternity and establishing
child support. She must name the father and help locate him unless
she has good cause to be exempted from the requirement (e.g.
incest, rape, or danger of harm to her or her child).
The paternity establishment and parent locator services of the
child support system are available, however, to any custodial
parent upon request, sometimes for a small fee. A small, but
increasing proportion of the IV-D paternity cases are brought by
non-AFDC clients. In the great majority of cases (85%), paternity
is voluntarily acknowledged. Contested suits may require a blood
test (or, increasingly, genetic testing).
Although a few local jurisdictions have made intensive and
successful efforts, the states' performance overall in establishing
paternity has been sadly lacking. In spite of federal
encouragement to the state offices of child support, in 1987, the
average paternity establishment rate (as a proportion of all
out-of-wedlock births) was only 31%. (The rates varied from a high
of 87% to a low of 1.4%). And 30 states failed a federal audit of
their efforts on paternity.
The primary barriers to paternity establishment are:
l State offices assign these cases low priority in their case
loads since they are viewed as having low immediate payoff (the
young unwed fathers are not usually able to pay much support).
States consider federal incentives inadequate to offset these costs
of pursuing paternity and support.
l Social workers and health care professionals, reflecting
community views, are ignorant about the benefits of paternity and
child support and perceive the system as pointlessly punitive.
Young fathers and mothers also experience the process as
intimidating, complex and punitive.
l Young unwed mothers and their parents, often do not want the
father legally identified or wish to receive child support from
him. This attitude may reflect their desire to protect themselves
from having to deal with the child's father, or from a desire to
protect him from bureaucratic harassment.
l While the law permits some exceptions to the requirement to
identify the father and his location (e.g. in cases of rape or
incest), the numbers of cases meeting these criteria are very
small. Most often the mothers act on their reluctance by claiming
they do not know who the father is (or where he lives) although
studies suggest most of the fathers are known and do have contact
with their partner and child.
l Other mothers may fail to cooperate due to worry that the
informal assistance presently provided by the father will dry up if
he disappears to avoid being involved with the formal child support
system.
l There is no system in place that reaches the majority of young
unwed mothers during their pregnancy with information and
counseling about the importance and value of paternity
establishment and child support. Information for the birth
certificate is collected from the mothers and filed routinely by a
hospital ward clerk who clearly has no responsibility to provide
information and counseling.
Suggested recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the
paternity establishment process include:
-increase federal incentives to the states;
-simplify the process: e.g. institute one-stop paternity
establishment;
-establish paternity as separate from the child support process;
-involve community and neighborhood organizations in carrying out
culturally sensitive efforts to educate youth, their parents and
the general public about the importance of paternity establishment
(and child support);
-require that all unwed pregnant young women---and if they are
minors, their parents---be given information and counseling about
the benefits of establishing paternity.
Current Policy Strategies: Child Support
Once the father is identified, the case is then brought before the
appropriate local jurisdiction where a child support order is made
through a judicial process which may require a court hearing.
State guidelines are increasingly used to establish appropriate
cash support awards, and they must include provisions for medical
support. If the custodial parent receives AFDC, rights to support
must be signed over to the state. Fifty dollars of this support is
passed on each month to the parent and does not reduce the amount
of the welfare benefit.
The rates of child support awards and collection for unmarried
mothers are lower than the rates of paternity establishment. In
1983 only 17.7% of never-married women were awarded child support
by the court as compared with about 75% of divorced women. Of
those who had awards, 76% actually received some support as did 76%
of the divorced; however, the dollar amount received by unmarried
mothers was about half that received by the divorced.
Barriers to collection of child support:
l Some judges hold off on issuing a support award when the unwed
father is unemployed or in school, believing that his lack of
income or low income would make a support order unrealistic.
Moreover, state support guidelines do not make provisions for
making a support award when there is no income.
l Young unwed fathers are often given low priority by the busy
hard-pressed child support officers. Since most of these fathers'
income is low or non-existent, the effort required to bring them
into the system would seem not to be cost effective in the short
run. In the long run, of course, once the young father gets steady
employment, the rewards of prompt paternity establishment and
support orders will accrue. A few jurisdictions are experimenting
with token awards.
Suggested recommendations to increase support awards and
collections include:
---never establish paternity without at least a token award;
---periodic reviews of the award amounts should be required;
---guidelines and awards should be flexible to accommodate payment
in kind or in service---such as providing child care;
---refer/require those young fathers who are unable to pay, or who
default on payment, to attend an employment and training program;
---community/public education about the child support system;
---community "hot-lines" should be established and listed in
telephone directories to provide readily accessible information to
the public about each jurisdiction's paternity and child support
services.
Current Policy Strategies: Employment and Training In order to
fulfill their financial responsibilities to their children, unwed
fathers need to earn income. Many young fathers who are unemployed
or employed only part time need assistance with finding and keeping
a job; and/or they may need further education and training to
improve their employability.
Of the various federal/state employment and training
programs---WIN, CETA, JTPA---none has made a special effort to
target young unwed fathers or has modified its programs to meet
their special needs. A few have targeted young unwed mothers.
However, there are some state demonstration efforts---most notably
in Florida (Project Independence), and Maryland (Absent Parents
Employment Program), that offer unwed fathers the opportunity to
participate in employment and training programs designed for the
absent parent.
Oklahoma enacted legislation in 1987 (not yet implemented) that
requires unemployed or underemployed absent parents, in default of
child support, to participate in job-finding, job-training and
placement programs.
Recommendations were made at the October 1986 conference that
welfare reform programs should allow and even encourage the
unemployed absent parent, as well as the custodial parent, to
enroll in training and job programs; also, that Labor Department
sponsored job programs should target young absent fathers for
services and provide them with stipends on condition of payment of
child support.
THE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT 1988 (P.L. 100-485)
This is a long complex Act with seven titles. It substantially
amends Title IV of the Social Security Act which includes AFDC,
work training, and child support. A number of organizations have
prepared comprehensive highlights or section by section summaries
of the Act. (See References and Resources.)
Signed into law on October 13, 1988, the Family Support Act has
been hailed as a dramatic restructuring of the nation's welfare
system. The AFDC program was originally designed in 1935 to serve
as pension for indigent widows to enable them to remain at home to
care for their children. The new Act's principal author, Senator
Patrick Moynihan, as he introduced the bill, S. 1511, in the Senate
in July 1987, described its central features as "stressing family
responsibility and community obligation in the context of the
vastly changed family arrangements of the last 50 years." (He was
referring to the rise in divorce, unwed parenthood and the increase
in maternal labor force participation.)
Moynihan then asserted that the Act sends two basic moral signals:
first, that no one escapes (economic) responsibility for
parenthood: and second, that welfare mothers are entitled to
education, job training and job search to help free them of the
stigma of dependency on the state and bring them back into the
mainstream.
As finally enacted, the bill did not raise welfare benefit levels
whose real value have greatly eroded in the past decade. However,
it did mandate that the program be made available to eligible
two-parent as well as one-parent families. (AFDC-UP is presently
available only in 27 states.)
Although the Act does not specifically distinguish young unwed
fathers for special mention, several of its provisions will
substantially affect this group.
Summary of Major Provisions of the Family Support Act
l Requires state to use, as a rebuttable presumption,
state-developed, uniform guidelines for setting child support
awards.
l Requires immediate automatic withholding of child support
payments from the absent parent's paycheck regardless of whether
there has been any default of payment.
l Establishes a new employment, education and training program for
AFDC recipients, named the Jobs Opportunities and Basic Skills
Training program (JOBS), as a replacement for the largely
ineffective and under funded WIN program. Depending on the
availability of state funds, participation in this program is
mandatory for all AFDC recipients with children over age 3. States
at their discretion may require mothers with children between 1-3
years old to enroll. This program is a capped entitlement program
(i.e. not subject to annual appropriations); under the current law
the WIN program is subject to annual appropriations.
l At least 50% of the JOBS funds must be spent on four target
groups comprising those most likely to be long-term welfare
recipients, such as those under age 24 who have not completed high
school.
l Child care and other support services must be guaranteed to
those required to enroll in the JOBS program or had work experience
in the previous year. Child care services and Medicaid must be
available for up to one year after a recipient becomes employed and
leaves the program.
l Mandates AFDC-UP (Unemployed Parent) benefits for at least six
months to two-parent families in which the principal wage earner is
unemployed. Requires that the wage earner works 16 hours per week
in a training program or mandated work program.
l Requires ten different studies and seven types of demonstration
programs designed to assess the effectiveness of many of the new
features in the Act. These will require federally appropriated
funds.
l Allows states to require the use of contract agreements and case
managers to facilitate client participation in the JOBS program.
l Includes many additional administrative and financial provisions
designed to increase efficiency, ease implementation, build in some
flexibility, strengthen child support enforcement further and
improve reporting.
Funding: The Family Support Act creates a capped federal
entitlement that will match, under various formulas, state
expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Act
will cost $3.3 billion over the next five years, with one-third of
that amount representing the increased costs of the AFDC-UP
expansion, one-third the JOBS program and one-third the cost of the
transitional child care and Medicaid benefits. (The
Administration's current estimates are nearly the same, $3.6
billion.)
The Act is designed to be deficit-neutral as the outlays will be
balanced by various funding provisions included in the bill, such
as limiting the child care tax credit. In addition, several
provisions of the bill will result in cost savings, such as the use
of standardized child support guidelines.
The Act will be phased in gradually to allow for the regulations
and necessary state law accommodation, but most provisions must be
put into effect within two years.
Family Support Act Provisions Specifically Affecting Young Unwed
Fathers
l Requires states to meet new, tougher standards for improving
paternity determination, according to a somewhat complicated
formula. These standards aim to overcome the states' reluctance to
pursue paternity.
l Provides for federal matching of 90% of the cost of blood and
other tests to establish paternity.
l Encourages states to institute simpler, civil procedures for
establishing paternity and settling paternity disputes.
l Requires states to collect Social Security numbers from both
parents at the time of the child's birth. These numbers will not
be recorded on the birth certificate.
l The original Senate provision that permitted states to allow or
require absent parents to meet their support obligations by
enrolling in the JOBS program was dropped at House insistence. But
the Act retained the idea through permitting the Secretary of HHS
to grant waivers to five states that wish to do this through
demonstration programs.
Family Impact Questions for Discussion
There are a wide range of questions to be asked about how this new
program will be implemented, and how fair and effective it will be.
We suggest below some of the questions specifically arising from a
family perspective.
1. How adequately does the Family Support Act help unwed fathers'
meet their obligations towards their children?
2. How does the Act deal with the competing rights and interests
of the various parties involved when they come into conflict---for
example, with respect to paternity establishment and child support
and visitation?
3. To what extent does the new Act take into account, if at all,
the minor parent's transitional status to independent adulthood,
and the fact that the majority of young adult unwed mothers and
fathers live in their parental households, for example, in setting
child support guidelines?
4. To what extent does the new JOBS program take into account the
diversity of families' circumstances and children's needs and
understand single parents' realistic difficulties in balancing both
job and family responsibilities?
Recent Selected References
Adams G. and Pittman K. Adolescent and Young Adult Fathers:
Problems and Solutions Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund,
1988
Besharov D., Quinn A., Zinsmeister K. "A Portrait in Black and
White: Out-of-Wedlock Births" Public Opinion May-June 1987, p. 43
Bureau of the Census. Child Support and Alimony: 1985. Current
Population Report, Series P-23, No. 152. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1987
Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate. Welfare Programs for Families
with Children, (Data and Materials Related to), Washington, D.C:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988
Ellwood D. Poor Support: Poverty and the American Family. New
York, N.Y.: Basic Books 1988
Elster, A. , and Lamb, M. Adolescent Fatherhood, Hillsdale N.J.:
Lawrence Ehrlbaum, 1986
Haskins, R., Dobelstein, A., Akin J., and Schwartz, J. Estimates of
National Child Support Collections Potential and Income Security of
Female-Headed Families. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North
Carolina, 1985
Hayes, C. ed. Risking the Future: Adolescent Sexuality, Pregnancy,
and Childbearing. Final Report of the National Research Council
Panel on Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbearing, Vol. 1, and Working
Papers, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987
Johnson, C. and Sum, A. Declining Earnings of Young Men: Their
Relationship to Poverty, Teen Pregnancy, and Family Formation.
Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund, 1987
Kastner, C., McKillop, L. et al. Child Support Services for Young
Families: Current Issues and Future Directions. Proceeding of
Forum on Child Support Services for Young Families, includes nine
papers. Washington, D.C.: Center for the Support of Children, 1988
Lerman, R. "A National Profile of Young Unwed Fathers: Who Are They
and How Are They Parenting?" paper commissioned for HHS conference
held in Oct. 1986. Available from: Project SHARE, P.O. Box 2309,
Rockville, MD. 20852
Lerman, R. and Ooms, T. "Family Influences on Transitions to the
Adult Job Market," paper commissioned by and available from, Youth
and America's Future: The William T. Grant Foundation Commission on
Work, Family and Citizenship, 1001 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036, 1988
Moore, K. Facts at a Glance: An Update. Washington, D.C.: Child
Trends, Inc., 1988. (Key national and state by state statistics
related to teen family formation.)
National Urban League. Adolescent Male Responsibility: Pregnancy
Prevention and Parenting Program: A Program Development Guide. A
report of the Adolescent Male Responsibility Project. New York,
N.Y.: National Urban League, 1987 (The report includes brief
profiles of 26 programs.)
Nichols-Casebolt, A. "Paternity Adjudication In the Best Interest
of the Out of Wedlock Child," Child Welfare, Vol. 33:3. 269-271.
1988
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Department of
Education Youth Indicators 1988. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1988
Parke, R. and Neville B. "Teenage Fatherhood" in Hofferths. and
Hayes. C. eds. Risking the Future. Vol II. Working Papers &
Statistical Appendices, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
1987
Pittman K. and Adams G. Teenage Pregnancy: An Advocate's Guide to
The Numbers. Washington, D.C. : Children's Defense Fund, 1988
Robinson B. Teenage Fathers. Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath & Co.,
1988
Rovner, J. "Congress Approves Overhaul of Welfare System"
Congressional Quarterly, Oct. 8, 1988, p. 2825
Sander, J. Working with Teenage Fathers: Handbook for Program
Development. New York: Bank Street College of Education, 1986.
(This report provides brief profiles of 5 program models.)
Savage B. Child Support and Teen Parents. Washington, D.C.:
Children's Defense Fund, 1987
Savage B. and Roberts P. "Unmarried Teens and Child Support
Services", Vol. 21, No. 5, Clearinghouse Review, October 1987
Smollar J. and Ooms T. Young Unwed Fathers: Research Review, Policy
Dilemmas and Options Summary Report of HHS sponsored, Oct. 1986
conference. Available from: Project SHARE, P.O. Box 2309,
Rockville, MD. 20852
Vinovskis, M. and Chase-Lansdale, L. "Should We Discourage Teenage
Marriage?" Public Interest Vol. 87, Spring: 23-37
Wattenberg, E. "Establishing Paternity for Nonmarital Children: Do
Policy and Practice Discourage Adjudication?" Public Welfare, 1986
Vol 45, no. 3: 9-13, 48
Wetzel, J.R. American Youth: A Statistical Snapshot. A report
commissioned by Youth and America's Future: The William T. Grant
Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship. Suite 301,
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Organizational Resources
The following organizations provide publications, other materials
(such as posters), and, in some cases, technical assistance with
regard to paternity, child support, welfare reform, and other
issues concerning unwed fathers.
American Public Welfare Association, 810 First Street N.E., Suite
500, Washington, D.C. 20002, (202) 682-0100. Contact: Bard
Shollenberger, Senior Policy Associate.
Center for Law and Social Policy, 1616 P Street N.W., Suite 350,
Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 328-5140. Contact: Paula Roberts,
Senior Attorney.
Center for Support of Children, 2815 Rittenhouse Street N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20015, (202) 244-5134. Contact: Laurene McKillop,
Executive Director.
Children's Defense Fund, 122 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001,
(202) 628-8787. Contact: Nancy Ebb, Senior Staff Attorney.
The National Center for Youth Law, Adolescent Health Care Project,
1663 Mission Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415)
543-3307. Contact: Lillian Tereszkiewicz, Project Coordinator.
National Conference on State Legislatures, Human Services Dept.,
1050 17th Street, Suite 2100, Denver, Colorado 80265, (303)
623-7800. Contact: Laura Loyacono. In D.C. (202) 624-5400.
Contact: Sheri Steisel.
National Governors Association, Human Resources Committee, 444 N.
Capitol Street, Suite 250, Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 624-5340.
Contact: Elisha Smith, Director.
National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection,
American Bar Association, 1800 M Street N.W., Suite 200,
Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 331-2250. Contact: Meg Haynes,
Director, Child Support Project.
National Reference Center, Office of Child Support Enforcement,
370, L'Enfant Promenade S.W., Fifth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20447,
(202) 252-5431. Contact: Nancyjoy Weissman.
The National Urban League, The Male Responsibility Project, 500
East 62nd Street, New York, NY 10021, (202) 310-9000. Contact:
Kevin Gibb, National Project Coordinator or contact the local Urban
League affiliate in D.C. (202) 265-8200.
_________________________________________________________________
KEYWORDS::FAMILY IMPACT SEMINAR UNWED FATHERS
AVAILABILITY::
For more information concerning CYFERNET please contact the Youth
Development Information Center at the National Agricultural Library
at (301) 504-6400 or [email protected].
____________________________________________________
.
|
| 165.4 | 1989 Attachment Theory and the Aftermath of Divorce | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:41 | 94 |
|
1989 Attachment Theory and the Aftermath of Divorce
Center for Early Education, University of Minnesota
226 Child Development, 51 E. River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612/624-5780
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
from Early Report
Fall 1989 Volume 17, Number I
Attachment Theory and the Aftermath of Divorce
With its emphasis on emotional aspects of important
relationships, attachment theory has relevance for issues
surrounding divorce and child custody. Two propositions from
attachment theory are particularly significant: First, threat
will be experienced in the face of probable or actual separations
from attachment figures; and, second, attachment relationships
endure through time and space, despite separations. The first
tenet helps explain the strong emotional reactions and
irrationality of persons in the throes of major separations. The
second aspect is a key to providing the reassurance that parents
need in the face of separations.
According to attachment theory, negative reactions to
separation are nature's way of guaranteeing that group-living
"higher" animals, such as humans, will give high priority to
maintaining vital relationships. Emotions such as apprehension,
anxiety, and anger all serve the purpose of maintaining
relationships (increasing vigilance, punishing a separating
partner, etc.). Strong attachments, which are crucial to human
survival and adaptation, carry with them intense negative
reactions to ending the relationship. Without such reactions,
bonds would be less likely to endure. When marital partners break
up, especially when children are involved, strong emotional
reactions are inevitable. The form of the reaction may differ,
but similar underlying feelings are present.
One common scenario is for one parent (usually the mother)
to be "left" with the children. In this case the mother's
heightened threat often takes the form of being angry at the
husband and protective of the children. She fears contact with
him will be damaging and seeks to wall him out or control his
contact. The father, who is also feeling acutely threatened,
becomes suspicious of the mother's intent and fear that (partly
through her doing) he will be cut off from the children.
Underneath this often is the further fear that he will ultimately
displaced by another.
In the state of paranoia that comes with marital separation,
it is difficult for parents to realize that no one (including
their spouse or a new step-parent) can take their relationships
with children away from them. The hallmark of attachment
relationships is their durability. Neither physical separation
nor death terminates attachments. Such is the nature of these
vital relationships. The depth of relationships with children
will always depend on the emotional investment they are granted.
And this is not strictly the amount of time spent in interaction.
One implication of these propositions is that changing but
pre-ordained custody arrangements may work best. Consider the
important case of custody disputes involving infants. Were the
mother at first granted sole custody, with joint custody (both
legal and physical) evolving gradually at later ages, the
separation distress of all parties may be assuaged. Mother would
feel her protective urges gratified. Fathers often would accept
her temporary sole custody because his later sharing in custody
(and, in his mind, preserving of his relationship) is guaranteed.
He would be assured that she (or a new partner) cannot take his
child away. His future relationship is not jeopardized. There
would be time for the temporary insanity to fade and some
opportunity for detente in an arena of reduced daily
negotiations.
There is, of course, no one right way to arrange custody. In
some cases the plan just described would not be adequate.
Moreover, nothing can eliminate the normal emotional reaction to
separation. Anger, recrimination and, most of all, feelings of
threat are inevitable by-products of severing attachments. But if
such normal reactions are taken into account, and if court
personnel and mental health professionals can help parents
understand that there is a normal course to such reactions and
that, in the end, their relationships with their children will be
both vital and intact, perhaps the level of expressed animosity
can be reduced. The literature makes clear that resolving the
tension between parties is the key ingredient in reducing
negative consequences of divorce for children. We all need to
dedicate ourselves to this goal.
By L. Alan Sroufe, Ph.D.
Professor, Institute of Child Development
University of Minnesota
.
|
| 165.5 | 1989 YOUNG UNWED FATHERS | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:44 | 62 |
|
1989 YOUNG UNWED FATHERS
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
240 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: 612/625-1915
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
from Family Life Packet: Jun 1989
YOUNG UNWED FATHERS
Researchers and policymakers are increasingly concerned
about trends of unwed teen parenting. Although the number and
rate of births to teens overall is declining, the number of
births to unmarried teens is up dramatically. Most attention
has focused on the plight of the teen mother and her child,
but a recent report assesses the role of teen fathers.
The "typical" teen father is difficult to describe. He
does not fit a stereotype, but instead comes from all
geographic regions, income levels, and races. Some avoid the
responsibilities of parenthood, but others are actively
involved with their children. Teen fathers are generally
educationally disadvantaged and face poor employment
prospects.
The report includes six policy recommendations:
1. Unwed fathers need to be held responsible for their
children and, for the most part, should be required to fulfill
the minimum obligations of fatherhood -- namely, legally
establishing paternity and paying financial support.
2. It is generally in the best interests of the children if
their fathers develop a personal relationship with them and
this should be encouraged.
3. These responsibilities and interests need to be balanced
against the rights and needs of the young mothers, family
members, and society as a whole.
4. Young unwed fathers often need considerable assistance
and encouragement to be able to fulfill their parenting
responsibilities, including acquiring job skills and being
provided with employment opportunities.
5. Increasing the job skills and opportunities of young
unwed fathers not only benefits their children but society as
a whole. Given the need for skilled workers predicted for the
year 2000, the health of our economy requires that these young
men be productive.
6. Many different sectors of society at national, state, and
local levels will need to work together to meet the challenge
of encouraging more responsible and involved parenting among
unwed fathers.
SSM
______________
Source: "Young Unwed Fathers: Research Review, Policy
Dilemmas, and Options," Smoller and Ooms, 1987 from Don Bower,
Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, May 1989.
.
|
| 165.6 | 1990 ENCOURAGING FATHERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE, part 1 | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:45 | 1304 |
|
1990 ENCOURAGING FATHERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE, part 1
TITLE:: ENCOURAGING FATHERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE: PATERNITY
ESTABLISHMENT, CHILD SUPPORT AND JOBS STRATEGIES
CYFERNET ID::IMPACT12
ENTRY DATE::
AUTHOR:: FAMILY IMPACT SEMINAR
ORGANIZATION:: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY
DOCUMENT TYPE:: PROCEEDINGS
DOCUMENT SIZE:: 165K OR 52 PAGES
PART 1 of 2 PARTS
To receive more information on the family impact seminar please
request CATALOG or OVERVIEW from the FAMILY_IMPACT section of
CYFERNET.
_________________________________________________________________
Encouraging Fathers to Be Responsible:
Paternity Establishment, Child Support
and JOBS Strategies
November 16, 1990, 210 Cannon House Office Building
Panelists: Esther Wattenberg, professor, School of Social Work and
research fellow, Center for Urban and Regional
Affairs, University of Minnesota
Pamela Holcomb, research associate, Urban Institute
Bernardine Watson, director, Individual and Family
Support Unit, Public/Private Ventures
Fred Doolittle, Ph.D., associate director of research,
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation N.Y.
Moderator: Theodora Ooms, Director, Family Impact Seminar
_________________________________________________________________
Highlights.....................................pages i to x
Background Briefing
Report.........................................pages 1 to 27
___________________________________________________
Encouraging Fathers to Be Responsible:
Paternity Establishment, Child Support and
JOBS Strategies
Background Briefing Report
and
Meeting Highlights
Theodora Ooms and Todd Owen
This policy seminar is one in a series of monthly seminars for
policy staff titled, Family Centered Social Policy: The Emerging
Agenda, conducted by the Family Impact Seminar, American
Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Research and Education
Foundation, 1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W., The Tenth Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/467-5114
This seminar was co-sponsored by the Consortium of Family
Organizations (COFO) and funded by the Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation.
COFO Members:
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT)
American Home Economics Association (AHEA)
Family Resource Coalition (FRC)
Family Service America (FSA)
National Council on Family Relations (NCFR)
Copyright ~ 1990
The Family Impact Seminar (FIS), The AAMFT Research and Education
Foundation, Washington, D.C.
All Rights Reserved.
This Background Briefing Report may be photocopied for education,
teaching, and dissemination purposes provided that the proper
attribution is prominently displayed on the copies. If more than
50 copies are made, FIS must be notified in writing, prior to
duplication, of the number of copies to be made and the purpose of
the duplication.
Table of contents
Page
Highlights i - x
Introduction 1
Scope and Nature of the Policy Problem 3
Policy Goals and Dilemmas 10
Points of Intervention: A Policy Continuum For
Encouraging Unwed Fathers to be Responsible 12
Questions and Issues for Research and Debate 21
Selected References 22
Table 1: Points of Intervention: A Policy Continuum
for Encouraging Unwed Fathers to be Responsible 27
Encouraging Fathers To Be Responsible:
Paternity Establishment, Child Support and JOBS Strategies
Highlights of the seminar meeting held on November 16, 1990 in
Cannon House Office Building, Room 210 (a supplement to the
background briefing report).
Encouraging paternal financial responsibility is now a declared
goal of public policy. However, it is only recently that the
attention has broadened to include unwed fathers in this goal, as
well as divorced and separated fathers. Statistics on the dramatic
growth in their numbers partly accounts for this new interest
explained Theodora Ooms, the moderator. More than half of children
on AFDC, about one in five of all children and two out of every
three black children are born out of wedlock. Of these less then
a quarter have paternity legally established and even fewer unwed
fathers pay child support. The panelists were asked to try to
explain this situation, discuss societal expectations of unwed
fathers, describe the goals and current points of intervention (see
Table I, p. 27) and emerging policy options.
The first speaker, Pamela Holcomb, is a research associate at the
Urban Institute. Holcomb began by relating some preliminary
findings from the first national survey of local paternity
establishment practices which was funded by Ford Foundation and
ASPE/DHHS. The goal of the survey was to fill in the current
vacuum of information and obtain a picture of paternity
establishment practices currently being used by local child support
agencies and to determine what factors or practices are associated
with higher paternity establishment rates.
The survey consisted of a combination of semi-structured telephone
interviews and mail questionnaires involving 250 counties in 42
states and the District of Columbia. Holcomb said that the
premliminary findings she would use were based on a return rate of
58% but a forthcoming, final analysis will be based on a
substantially higher response rate.
Diverse organizational actors. Holcomb pointed out that at the
state and local level there is a wide variety of organizations
involved and hence a wide range of paternity establishment
practices exist in localities across the country. The overall
child support enforcement programs are typically housed within a
separate unit of the human services/welfare agency. On the other
hand paternity establishment functions are usually carried out in
a legal setting, reflecting the historical legacy of bastardy
proceedings being a criminal action. In fact, Holcomb added,
two-thirds of the child support (IV-D) programs in the sample have
cooperative agreements or contracts with a legal agency to carry
out all or some aspects of paternity establishment. In some
jurisdictions this is only in contested cases, but in others for
all cases. These agencies include the District Attorney's office,
State Attorney's office, legal aid society, bar association, or
private attorneys. The remaining third of the IV-D agencies use
in-house legal staff.
Courts are another major actor in paternity establishment. There
is considerable variation from state to state, and among counties
in a state, in the amount of judicial action required for paternity
establishment. This can range from requiring that the alleged
father and mother appear before a judge in all paternity cases;
having only cases where the alleged father will not voluntarily
consent to paternity appear before a judge; having a majority of
cases resolved before quasi-judicial staffs; and having virtually
no court involvement and establishing the vast majority of cases
through an administrative process.
Thus in many localities, successful paternity establishment
requires the interconnection of actions across a number of
agencies, which can create delays in case processing and difficulty
in case tracking. A never-married mother applying for AFDC will
end up being a client in the welfare division, the child support
division, the county attorney's office and be expected to make
court appearances and go to a lab for genetic testing as her case
winds through the system.
Local Paternity Establishment Procedures. To illustrate the
diversity of practices, Holcomb then briefly contrasted two
paternity establishment systems in two states. In Oklahoma,
localities were described as having an essentially adversarial
court paternity establishment process. In most areas the state has
contracts with the local D.A.'s offices to handle child support.
In one locality the mother is interviewed by staff and once the
alleged father is found, the case is filed in district court. He
is served with a paternity allegation and is given a court date.
He must appear for a court date even if he wishes to acknowledge
paternity. In court he either consents to or denies paternity. If
he denies, the judge orders blood tests which are administered in
the D.A.'s office. The putative father is given the opportunity to
respond to the results of the blood test at the second court
appearance at which time the case is formally adjudicated.
In Connecticut, by contrast, most child support offices use a
paternity establishment process which encourages voluntary consent
by the alleged father with the court serving only as the last
resort. In this locality once the mother is interviewed and the
alleged father located, he is sent a letter explaining the
allegation and his options and asking him to make an appointment to
discuss the matter. He is given 10 days to respond. If he admits
paternity the case is closed. If he does not respond, the case is
filed, the court date set and the alleged father is served. a
summons to appear. He and the mother appear before a court
magistrate where he can consent and establish paternity. If he
denies, blood tests are ordered. Based on the results, a second
court appearance is held, at which point paternity is established.
It is generally believed that paternity establishment rates are
higher when alleged fathers are encouraged to consent voluntarily.
Overall, offices reported in the survey that one-third of
paternities were established voluntarily, before genetic testing.
One-fifth were established after genetic tests but before court
appearances. A quarter were established in court and one-eighth
were established by default when the alleged father failed to
respond to the allegation.
Innovative Practices and Barriers. Holcomb then discussed some
innovative practices designed both to expedite the process of
paternity establishment and encourage cooperation.
---Some offices reported interviewing mothers in a group. While
this can increase the number of interviews, it has been criticized
for a lack of privacy as well as the belief that the mother would
be less forthcoming with information under these curcumstances.
---Based on the belief that fathers are more likely to acknowledge
paternity sooner rather than later after the child's birth, there
are some new efforts in several states, such as in Washington, to
allow the unwed father a chance to acknowledge paternity right at
the hospital. This is considered a legally binding agreement,
although in Washington the father can ask for blood tests at a
later date.
---Several jurisdictions have initiated the use of on-site blood
testing in order to eliminate the delay between the request for a
test and the actual drawing of blood.
---In localities which require court appearances, some are holding
mass hearings for alleged fathers, where they are told their rights
and options and given the opportunity to consent or deny paternity.
(These may be followed by on-site blood-testing.)
Barriers to effective paternity establishment. According to
Holcomb the two most common barriers to paternity establishment
cited in the survey were uncooperative custodial parents and
difficulty locating the alleged father. Almost two-thirds
identified locating the father as where the greatest number of
cases were held up in the system. Despite the perception that
courts are the primary cause for delay, only between 10% and 15%
felt the courts were where the most cases were hung up. Another
commonly cited barrier was that there is not enough staff to handle
all the cases.
Most respondents thought the primary barriers occurred long before
the courts got involved. Uncooperative mothers make finding the
alleged father quite difficult. And many mothers in child support
enforcement programs come through the AFDC door and can be
reluctant child support clients.
Public education and outreach. This is one strategy designed to
gain the young parents cooperation and allay some of the fears and
misconception that some localities were using effectively. Yet on
the survey less than 50% of IV-D offices reported any public
education activities; only 10% reported outreach to hospitals and
maternity wards, 6% to pre-natal care units, and one-third to teen
pregnancy and parenting programs.
Holcomb concluded by stating that based on the survey responses it
appears that some of the recent efforts to expedite paternity
establishment have been successful. Nevertheless, it was the view
of their research team that in addition to thinking about
streamlining procedures to make the process more efficient, "more
attention and staff time need to be directed to some of the
problems of uncooperative parents and locating alleged fathers if
we are to see paternity establishment rates increase to their full
potential."
Esther Wattenberg, the next panelist, is professor at the School of
Social Work and research fellow, at the Center for Urban and
Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. She drew on her
extensive research in Minnesota with unwed parents and social
service providers to explore attitudes and barriers to paternity
establishment and suggested needed policy directions.
According to Wattenberg paternity adjudication has reached a new
stage, with increasing numbers of people studying the fastest
growing type of family formation in the US, unmarried parents with
out-of-wedlock children. This group is escalating across all ages
of child-bearing women, only one-third are teenagers, the group she
and her colleagues have studied.
After citing some of the statistics, Wattenberg opened her remarks
by saying the central question in her view was "How do you protect
the long-term interest of these growing numbers of out-of-wedlock
children?" The answers were complex since this is clearly an area
of contending interests. The state/government wants the money that
may be available from unmarried fathers. The child's parents often
have opposing interests, and their interests are not always
consistent with that of the child. Then there are the
grandparents, other relatives and an array of social service and
community systems each with a variety of views and interests in the
issue.
Study of Young Unwed Parents. In past studies of paternity
establishment there has been a focus on procedural and
administrative reform. While these are important, remarkably
absent from earlier studies was an examination of the reasons why
young people choose whether or not to declare paternity. A grant
from the Ford Foundation enabled Wattenberg and two colleagues to
look at this question more closely.
In their recently completed study they conducted intensive two and
a half hour interviews with both the unwed teenage mothers and
young fathers, the first major study to collect data from the unwed
"dyad". The parents were selected from a pool of Hennipin County,
Minnesota AFDC recipients and interviewed by same race, same gender
graduate students. The mothers were all 21 or younger with a child
under one year old. Approximately 37% were black, 37% were white
and 25% were interracial relationships.
The data from these interviews is in process of being analyzed.
however, Wattenberg proceeded to share some initial highlights of
the preliminary findings. (For final results see Wattenberg,
et.al. forthcoming in 1991.)
---They are a highly mobile group, half to two-thirds have moved
twice in the last six months. Hence it is not surprising, she
added, that it is hard for IV-D agencies to locate the fathers.
---These children are not a product of casual encounters, most of
the couples had an ongoing relationship and 70% had tried living
together for a while. Only 28% of the mothers were living with the
father of their child at the time of the interview.
---These young people came from very troubled family situations
where running away, drug and alcohol abuse and physical abuse were
common.
---The young mothers, especially the black mothers, developed a
network of social and supportive relationships with their own
family and friends after the baby's birth, but this rarely
intersected with the baby's father's network of relationships.
---Confirming the results of others' studies, the unwed white
fathers are more disconnected, dissociated, and in fact in greater
trouble in a social way than the black fathers.
---One in five white men had fathered more than one child and for
black men it was one in two. There was a small group of "roving
inseminators" one of whom had fathered eight children by eight
different mothers.
---Most of the unwed mothers believed that in five years they would
be married but not to the father of their child. A small group of
white women thought they would be married to the father.
---It was important to many of the young parents that the father's
name be on the child's birth certificate.
Wattenberg added that the survey result that the researcher found
most interesting and that has important policy implications was
that in nearly all cases giving birth was clearly not considered as
a 'fatal error' but as a positive event which had brought benefits
for them and their families (of origin). Many of the young men and
women described the birth of the child as a therapeutic event which
served to help them get their lives in order. Others described it
almost as an act of 'altruism' for the family. A birth would often
serve as a means of bringing together families who were
experiencing troubled lives otherwise. (It was striking how many
described having the fathers, several friends and family members
present in the delivery room!)
Although "we do not fully understand the meaning of this finding,"
said Wattenberg, "it is clear that it is linked with the high rates
of repeat pregnancies in this study" (and presumably in other
studies?). In fact one-third of white mothers and half of black
mothers in this study had two or more children at the time of the
interview. And 14% of the black and 8% of the white mothers were
pregnant at the follow up interview a year later.
Wattenberg suggested, in conclusion, that we follow three broad
recommendations for policy development in this area:
l Let the fathers identity be known to all out-of-wedlock
children. "It is my assumption that every child is owed a father."
This is partly because equal protection laws for marital and
non-marital children now make it possible for these children to
receive social security and armed forces benefits, workmen's
compensation, and inheritance if a legal link is made between the
father and his child.
To help guarantee that the father's identity is known to the
child, Wattenberg proposed that the declaration of parentage, which
can be easily obtained at the time of birth in hospital, be
separated out from the tangled web of child support, visitation and
custody issues. It should be treated much as marriage is, the
wedding ceremony is quite separate from enforcing marital
obligations.
l Decriminalize the whole system because it is very frightening
and intimidating to young people.
l Establish a national standardized procedure for paternity
establishment. There should be a way of monitoring, at the
hospital for example, whether or not every set of unmarried parents
are offered the chance to sign a declaration of parentage.
The next speaker was Bernardine Watson, director of the Individual
and Family Support Unit, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) in
Philadelphia. She was asked to outline the central features of the
Young Unwed Fathers Demonstration, funded by the C.S. Mott
Foundation, which is a new six site employment and training program
designed to offer young fathers a variety of services to help them
fulfil their financial and other parenting responsibilities.
Background of the project. This project has been in the planning
stages for two years and follows upon P/PV's work and explorations
in the area of teen pregnancy and parenting. They discovered that
very few programs existed for young fathers. These were poorly
funded and weren't tied in with the existing employment and
training programs. There was little research on unwed fathers, but
what was found showed they had many of the same difficulties as
young mothers, such as being prone to drop out of high school and
therefore tended to be underemployed and undereducated. In looking
through some ethnographic research they found that most young men
started out willing to support their children but were unprepared
economically, psychologically, and socially to take on the
responsibilities of being parents.
During the planning of the program P/PV kept in mind two public
policy initiatives which would affect this population. One was the
Family Support Act, with its increased emphasis on child support
collections. The other involved growing criticism of the JTPA
system because of its lack of targeting high risk populations and
its poor service to unmarried males. P/PV decided to design a
project in which they would work with communities across the
country to help them organize public and private resources to
design strategies for working with young unwed fathers. In this
project the programs were to provide the following five key
elements:
--Quality training and education to the fathers through the JTPA
system which would give them priority for programs often reserved
for older white males, such as on-the-job training opportunities.
--Access to good job opportunities within the community.
--Fatherhood development activities, centered around P/PV's
Fatherhood curriculum, to increase parenting values and skills,
encourage personal development, and foster responsible payment of
child support encourage responsible child support and parenting
such as access to health care and legal assistance, and parenting
classes while they are in the program.
Project Diversity. Watson said that P/PV decided to test more than
one model because there wasn't enough known about young unwed
fathers to design a single strategy. From a wide range of possible
applicants they chose six communities to work with and allowed them
considerable local flexibility on how these services would be
provided although they needed to meet several core requirements
(for further details see pages 20-21).
The programs will focus on young men between 16 and 25, JTPA
eligible, and who are fathers or expectant fathers. Each site will
serve 50 fathers. $50,000 in seed money was given to each site
from P/PV and the rest of the funding will come from local JTPA
organizations and local funding sources.
In selecting the sites P/PV wanted geographic diversity;
established organizations with ties into existing systems and
experience working with high-risk populations; and organizations
that would provide a variety of service delivery approaches and
improvement strategies. They selected two community-based
organizations that will be offering all services in-house; two
community broker agencies that will subcontract out most of the
services; and two private industry councils, one which will deliver
all the services themselves and one which will subcontract out
services.
A variety of strategies will be used. Two will work with child
support enforcement offices and the young men will be mandated to
participate in the program. One will take referrals from child
support enforcement on a voluntary basis. The other three will be
doing general outreach in the community, working with hospitals and
other agencies that serve young mothers and recruiting young men
off the streets and going door to door.
Project evaluation. The research to be conducted on this project
will include a close look at implementation strategies at all six
sites, specifically focusing on recruitment strategies,
inter-agency initiatives, how the fatherhood development curriculum
that P/PV designed will be received by the fathers, and how other
services are utilized by the young fathers. It will assess
employment outcomes for the participants and project costs and
funding strategies. An ethnographic study will look closely at the
lives of these young fathers, their motivations and their feelings
about becoming fathers.
Watson said in conclusion that P/PV is in the final stages of
design and development of the program with all six sites expected
to be participating by early 1991. The projects will operate for
18 months, during which P/PV will try to identify what model or
parts of models are worthy of a more intense test. A year into the
project they will look for a model on which to design a larger
demonstration, including an impact analysis using random
assignment.
Fred Doolittle, the final panelist, is the associate director of
research, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, N.Y. He was
asked to describe some of the initial issues, dilemmas and research
questions involved in planning the Parents' Fair Share
Demonstration (PFSD). Doolittle explained that the PFSD is a new
collaborative effort between the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Labor, the Ford Foundation, the Pew
Charitable Trust and New York City. Its goal is to test new ways
to increase the earnings of unwed/non-custodial parents and to have
that translate into increased support for their children. The
project will focus on AFDC families because a provision in the
Family Support Act authorizes a special waiver to allow five states
to use JOBS funds for services to non-custodial parents of children
who are receiving AFDC.
Policy Problems/Challenges. Doolittle said there are two basic
situations the PFSD is planning to address, each presenting a
uniquely complex set of policy problems, disincentives and
challenges.
The first are situations that the P/PV demonstration is addressing.
Young mothers and fathers without paternity established, with the
father is low-skilled and unemployed and the mother is receiving
AFDC. Historically, from the perspective of the child support
agencies, in these family situations it may not be worth the effort
to establish paternity and child support obligations because in the
short run there is little chance of collections as a result of the
fathers low-skills and lack of earning potential. And the mother
and father also have few incentives to cooperate. however, as
Wattenberg noted, there may be a larger, longer term societal
interest in establishing paternity both to be eligible for
potential benefits and because these fathers may mature and
establish solid work patterns, and become willing and able to pay
child support.
The programs established to respond to these types of situations
have had a social services orientation creating employment,
training and support services linked to cooperation with child
support and acceptance of parental responsibility.
The second situations presents a challenge to legal enforcement.
A judge or child support official has a young father before them,
for whom paternity has been established (and who is usually a
divorced or separated father) who has built up considerable arrears
by not paying support. He says he can't pay because he is
unemployed or too poor. It is difficult for the judge to determine
if he has the money and won't pay, if he is paying under the table
or if he truly does not have the money. Typically judges or child
support agencies have only had two options to deal with these types
of cases---the threat or imposition of jail, or give up because
they don't have the enforcement tools or programmatic response to
figure out if the young father is telling the truth.
More recently Washington D.C., P.G. County and some other
jurisdictions have responded by making participation in employment
and training and other services mandatory (and an alternative to
jail). The goal is to try to increase the earnings of the
non-custodial parent and link it closely with the obligation to pay
child support.
There has been a variety of responses in the jurisdictions that
have tried this third strategy. Some of the fathers turn out to be
employed and start paying child support instead of going through
the program (some call this the "smoke-out" factor). In these
cases there is an immediate impact on child support collections.
In other situations the young fathers do enroll in and benefit from
the training and employment assistance.
Disincentives for Participation. A programmatic response to both
these two problems can be difficult to implement. This, Doolittle
pointed out, can best be understood by examining the disincentives
to agencies to mount or cooperate with these innovative programs
and to the unwed father and mother to participate in them that need
to be overcome.
---The child support administration, with respect to AFDC cases,
has tended to focus their limited enforcement and administrative
resources on cases where there is a likely pay off in the short
run. Thus they have a disincentive to target these cases.
---AFDC mothers get only the first $50 dollars of child support a
month. So if a father is paying her more than $50 under the
table/outside the system, it would be to her financial disadvantage
to cooperate with the child support agency. And to some mothers,
who have a bad relationship with the baby's father, the $50 may not
be worth having to allow the father into their lives. They have a
disincentive to cooperate with IV-D in naming and locating the
father.
---The young fathers nowadays only have a couple of options. They
can live and work in the mainstream economy,acknowledge their legal
obligations and cooperate with the child support system to make
their payments. The other option is to move "underground", working
jobs off the books, frequently changing jobs, paying no taxes etc.
Until recently the young fathers typically lived in a 'grey' area
between these options. They lived and worked in the mainstream
economy and attempted to avoid their legal obligations, but it is
getting more and more difficult to get away with this.
MDRC is trying to meet the design challenges these problems pose.
In addition to building on the experience of some existing
innovative programs of both types---both those which have typically
emerged out of the court system and others from voluntary
programs---MRDC has conducted a number of focus groups with
non-custodial fathers who aren't paying child support. The goal of
these focus groups is to understand how they see their obligations
as fathers and what kind of programs might be attractive to them.
Program Guidelines. From these activities MDRC has developed some
initial program guidelines for the demonstration project which
includes four key elements:
---Employment and training services for non-custodial fathers to
increase their skills and earning capacity. The traditional
training/education option is not very attractive to the fathers who
suggested that what they wanted was on-the-job training, access to
apprenticeships, job search assistance and work experience. These
are what MRDC has in mind that the sites should offer.
---The second element is to have the fathers' increase in earning
capacity translate into an increased sense of responsibility to the
family. Through some kind of parenting curriculum the project
sites should provide these men with the chance to think through
what they see as their responsibility as fathers, and to provide
them with some basic information on how the child support system
works and their responsibilities and obligations in it. This
element is very important because based on their own experiences as
children many of these men have very negative views of a father's
role. MDRC plans to work with P/PV to adapt their parenthood
curriculum to include the issues of divorced and separated fathers.
---The third element tries to address the incentives that the
families face so that when you have increased earnings capacity and
a sense of responsibility, it is translated into action through the
system. This is a more difficult challenge because modifying
existing system disincentives---such as having child support paid
directly to the mother---would involve altering the fiscal
practices and short run receipts of numerous governmental agencies.
(This is being piloted in Georgia.)
---Fourth, as these men become more involved in the lives of their
children and their ex-partner there inevitably arises the potential
for conflict between the parents. Thus the final program component
addresses the need to develop a mediation services which would be
available to these families.
Doolittle pointed out that MRDC, like P/PV, intends there to be a
variety in the types of model programs offered among the five
funded sites. These would include early intervention services to
try to influence paternity establishment, and programs offered on
a voluntary, social services basis and a required, enforcement
basis. (??O.K.?)
The formal request for proposals is expected to be issued in early
spring of 1991 after further consultation with DHHS and DOL.
Informally there have been many contacts already with potential
applicants. Initially MDRC will issue planning grants to a limited
number of sites. Based on their experience five sites will be
chosen from these for the demonstration program grants.
MDRC will conduct the project evaluation, initially studying
program implementation and how to operate the complicated
inter-agency connections that are needed to mesh child support,
employment training and some of the other services. Full blown
impact studies will then later be conducted on a smaller number of
the sites. Funding will come from the JOBS program, the Department
of Labor, local JTPA agencies and MRDC foundation partners.
As Ooms pointed out over the next few years we can expect to learn
a great deal more about how to enhance paternal responsibility
through the eleven demonstration programs together being planned by
MDRC and P/PV.
POINTS MADE DURING DISCUSSION
l One participant mentioned several recent administration
proposals in the reauthorization of the food stamp program (which
were not enacted) including one that would have required custodial
parents to cooperate with local child support enforcement agencies
as a condition for the custodial parent to receive food stamps.
Wattenberg added that she was eager to see what will be learned
from the demonstration projects about coercive and non-coercive
strategies. The parents they interviewed in their study clearly
regarded child support enforcement as totally irrelevant to their
lives and wanted nothing to do with it. Indeed they became very
skilled at evasion strategies. She felt that whatever the logical
rationale for a particular policy, it is important to take into
consideration the actual attitudes and responses of the people who
are going to be affected by it.
Doolittle commented that they discovered from focus groups that the
young men didn't understand the child support support system very
well, but many knew that most of what they contributed went to the
government, not the mother and child. This greatly affected their
views of child support. Moreover, Doolittle pointed out that the
implementation of the AFDC requirement of cooperation with child
support enforcement varies tremendously among jurisdictions. For
example, as a result of litigation in New York IV-D workers are
required to do no more than ask the mother for the identity of the
father. (O.K.?)
l A participant from the Family Support Administration (FSA)
suggested that non-cooperation of mothers is only one of a number
of more basic issues such as the fact that there is no longer any
expectation of marriage to the father. Another major problem is
effective linkage between the welfare and child support systems.
The FSA has tried to encourage IV-A/IV-D interface, and he asked
the panelists whether they felt that the underlying notions of the
Family Support Act are leading welfare agencies to take the issue
of non-cooperation a lot more seriously than has been done in the
past.
Holcomb responded that from their survey it appears that the
relationship between AFDC and child support is often adversarial,
with each viewing the other as the bad guy. She hasn't seen much
effort to improve relations, although there are a few instances of
AFDC workers attending court when child support cases are being
heard and there is a small amount of cross-training. It is an
issue that is gaining recognition but needs more action.
Ooms asked whether it was true that the critical point in the
process was at the point of intake application to AFDC, isn't that
when the AFDC eligibility worker first has a chance to educate the
child's mother about paternity and child support?
Holcomb agreed that it was indeed critical. What the AFDC
applicants are initially told about child support, and why it might
be beneficial to them or their children, whether it is presented in
a positive manner, and how quickly referrals are made are all very
important in establishing paternity and obtaining child support.
l Doolittle was asked to address questions about the planned
research design and what sort of problems were they expecting in
doing impact studies and using random assignment. Doolittle stated
that a reason for doing the demonstration in several stages is that
one can understand better the way the programs are likely to work
as well as the scale constraints because most of the programs are
small. They will try to use the pilot phase to see what is a
feasible scale and what kind of follow up research they can do.
Watson added that one reason P/PV isn't going to do an impact
analysis right away is that there are so many questions about what
will attract these men to the programs. It is a difficult
population to do random assignment and control groups, until they
understand recruitment strategies.
l Wattenberg was asked if they looked at the income or resources
of the fathers in her study. She replied that the data on the
economic resources of the fathers was rich but had not yet been
completely analyzed. however, it was clear that as a group these
fathers were low income and had unstable employment patterns. A
large portion were receiving general assistance, Medicaid and food
stamps.
Ooms commented that a somewhat different picture of their economic
circumstances emerges from a study based on a national sample of
unwed fathers, not just the partners of AFDC mothers as in
Wattenberg's study. Lerman found from the NLS data that the family
income of the majority of unwed fathers who lived with their
relatives was twice the family income of unwed mothers.
l Each speaker had alluded to the first year of a child's life
as presenting a window of opportunity for establishing paternity.
But at the same time, a participant noted, it may be the most
difficult year in terms of the financial resources the father has
to offer. She asked if anyone knew of programs that used in-kind
contributions as a method for a father to establish a record of
responsibility early on?
Wattenberg said that this question brought her back to the need to
reframe the whole issue--- paternity must be established before
thinking about child support. Wattenberg believes we should do all
we can to establish the paternity of children early as a separate
step from enforcing child support obligations and sorting out
visitation and custody issues.
There are really three central policy questions she continued: How
do we facilitate this first vital step? Then how do we enforce
child support? and Finally, a question that is seldom asked, as a
community, do we expect all unwed fathers to be responsible for
their children or only those who become entangled in the AFDC
system?
l Ooms then introduced Irma Neal director of D.C. Office of
Child Support. to speak to the previous question about in-kind
support because of her previous experience in Indianapolis Neal
then described a small program for teen fathers in Marion County,
Indiana (the Teen Alternative Parenting Program) that she was
involved in, which encouraged payment of "in-kind" support as an
incentive for those young fathers to get involved. They would
receive credit for child support obligations if they continued
their education, attended parenting classes, etc. The details were
planned on an individual basis with an in-house counselor. (See
page 18.)
The program started in 1986 and continues today, serving no more
than 50 fathers at any one time. Neal explained that the D.C. City
Council in December would be considering legislation that separates
paternity establishment from child support and makes
acknowledgement of paternity equal to paternity establishment. The
biggest concern they have faced is the fear that such a plan may
violate the due process rights of the father. (** Check follow up
on what happened in D.C.)
Based on the experience of a similar law in Minnesota, Wattenberg
said that it was indeed very important that the fathers be made
aware of their rights as well as their responsibilities. however in
Minnesota the fathers have three years after the signing of a
declaration of parentage within which they can challenge their
paternity and ask for blood tests.
Encouraging Unwed Fathers to Be Responsible:
Paternity Establishment, Child Support and JOBS Strategies.
Background Briefing Report
INTRODUCTION
For more than a decade policymakers and researchers have been
concerned about the persistent poverty of female-headed families
and the failure of the large majority of absent fathers to pay
child support. Encouraging paternal responsibility is now a
declared goal of public policy. Until recently little distinction
was made between the different types of single parent households
which needed child support. Thus child support enforcement reforms
focused largely on increasing payments in divorced and separated
families. For the most part, the special circumstances of the
never-married were neglected. Yet a large and rapidly growing
proportion of female-headed families are formed as a result of
non-marital births.
In the mid-eighties policymakers turned their attention to the
policy issues involved in unwed parenthood. One out of every five
children, two out of three black children and more than half of all
the children on AFDC were born out-of-wedlock. Legal paternity is
established for only about a quarter of these children, even fewer
of these fathers officially, regularly, pay child support.
Policies aimed at enforcing or encouraging unwed fathers to live up
to their responsibilities face particular challenges and barriers
whose complex dimensions are only now beginning to be understood.
Contrary to the popular stereotype, many unwed fathers do care
about their children. In a national survey conducted in 1984-85
over half of young absent, unwed fathers reported that they visited
their children at least once a week, and 41% reported sometimes
paying child support. In addition they often provide child care
and other in-kind assistance. About 20% of young unwed fathers
live with their children. About 5% of young black unwed fathers
live with their child but not with the child's mother (Lerman,
1986; Lerman and Ooms, 1988).
Paternal responsibility takes on a very different meaning however
for a young father who was only involved with the young mother for
a few months, weeks or days, whose child does not bear his name and
whom he may have only seen once or twice, if at all. And there are
other young men---we have no way of knowing how many---who do not
even know they have fathered a child.
Designing policy to change the behavior of this large, heterogenous
group of unwed fathers poses special hurdles. It is estimated that
less than a quarter of all children born to never-married mothers
have their paternity legally established and, in 1987, only 19.7%
of never-married mothers had formal child support awards. Some
research indicates that unwed fathers have less income available to
draw on to pay child support and they are less well educated and
much more likely to be unemployed or have low wage jobs than
divorced or separated fathers.
Although no language in the Family Support Act of 1988 specifically
refers to out-of-wedlock children or unwed fathers several
provisions do address paternity establishment. In response, states
and counties are developing specific practices, procedures and
programs to encourage more unwed fathers to be responsible. Indeed
some localities had initiated innovative approaches to this
population prior to the passage of the Act.
The first section of this briefing report explores the scope,
dimensions and nature of the problem to answer the following
questions:
---What do we know about the characteristics and behavior of unwed
fathers?
---What do we know about the role of the unwed mothers, their
respective families and the community?
---What are some of the other factors and barriers that contribute
to such low rates of paternity establishment and child support
payments?
---What program practices have been found to encourage paternal
involvement and responsibility?
In the second section we first discuss the policy goals,
conflicting interests and value dilemmas involved in encouraging
unwed fathers' responsibility. How best can the interests of the
child be balanced with the competing rights and responsibilities of
both parents and the interests of the public?
We then outline a continuum of the points of policy and program
intervention and briefly identify promising strategies that are
emerging at each stage. Within this framework we mention related
provisions of the Family Support Act of 1988, especially its
paternity establishment provisions. We then describe plans for two
multi-site employment and training demonstrations, national in
scope, specifically designed to enhance unwed fathers' earning
capacity and thereby improve their ability to pay child support.
Some of these programs also aim to assist the young fathers in
other aspects of parenting.
In conclusion we assess whether there is sufficient evidence to
know what strategies and options are likely to be effective and
what research needs to be done in the future.
Definition of terms: Reflecting the shift in societal attitudes,
children whose parents were not married when they were born are no
longer referred to by the pejorative term 'illegitimate'. In this
report we use two alternate terms interchangeably, out-of-wedlock
and non-marital.
It is difficult to find an accurate term to identify out-of-wedlock
children's parents, since their marital status changes and some
categories overlap, as follows:
---Out-of-wedlock children's parents are generally referred to in
the literature and in this report as unwed or never-married but in
fact some of them will later marry other partners. In this case
they properly belong in the married category even though they have
a child fathered/mothered by another man/woman to whom they were
not married at the time of birth.
---The term absent parent, includes those who are married,
separated, divorced and never-married but are not living with with
their child. The term non-residential parent however may be
preferable, since some so-called absent parents are quite a
presence in their children's lives, see them regularly and
sometimes take care of them.
---The term non-custodial parent is often used interchangeably with
absent parent in these policy discussions and refers to the fact
that their child(ren) do not live with them. But some use the term
to make the distinction between divorced and separated fathers who
do not have legal custody (non-custodial fathers) and unwed fathers
for whom legal custody is rarely an issue.
---The term single parent family is commonly used to refer to a
single parent household. In our view it would be more accurate if
the term were reserved for situations when one parent has died.
(From the child's perspective, he or she has two living parents
even if they are not married or living together.)
SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE POLICY PROBLEM
(Sources: Aron, Barnow & McNaught, 1989; Bureau of the Census,
1986, '87, '90; Committee on Ways and Means, 1990; Ellwood, 1988;
Haskins et. al. 1985; Lerman, 1986 and 1990; Sullivan, 1986 and
1990; Wattenberg, 1987 and forthcoming;)
Trends in Out-of-Wedlock Births.
The proportion of all births that take place out-of-wedlock has
greatly increased in the last two decades. In 1960 only 5.3% and
in 1970 only 10.7%, of all registered live births were
out-of-wedlock, but by 1986 the proportion had risen to 23.4%. As
a corollary, the proportion of births to married women dropped
sharply. About one third of all non-marital births are to women
under age 20. Black and Hispanic women are considerably more
likely to give birth out-of-wedlock than whites, though this is in
part a function of their higher rates of poverty. In 1986 31.6 %
of Hispanic births and 61.2% of black births were out-of-wedlock.
..
The composition of the population of female-headed families has
changed dramatically. The number of children with a divorced
parent has more than doubled since 1970, but the number with a
never-married parent grew by a multiple of 8. In 1979 16.5% of
female headed families were never married, in 1988 this proportion
had risen to 26.1 %.
The major policy concern about these increasing rates of
non-marital births arises from the association of unwed parenthood
with child poverty and welfare dependency.
l Children who are born out-of-wedlock are at greater risk of
being poor for longer periods of time than children born to married
parents.
l Children born out-of-wedlock now constitute the majority of
children receiving AFDC and are at greatest risk for long term
welfare dependency. In 1969 no marriage tie was the basis for
eligibility for 27.9% of child AFDC recipients, but by 1988 this
had become 51.9%.
l It is estimated that over 40% of never-married women who
enter the AFDC system at age 25 or less with a child less than 3
years old will spend ten years or more on AFDC.
Rates of Paternity Establishment: Data limitations.
There is a paucity of empirical research on legal paternity.
Without a legally established father, non-marital children are not
even eligible for child support. However no national data is
collected on the percentage of out-of-wedlock children who need
paternity to be established nor whose paternity is eventually
established. There are various factors which explain this gap in
data.
First, paternity establishment is not an issue for all children
born out-of-wedlock. Some infants die in their first year of life
and some become adopted. In some situations the child's parents
marry each other later on and proceed to establish paternity
themselves in what is usually a simple procedure. There are no
numbers available on how many out-of-wedlock children fall into
each of these categories nationally and thus we do not know the
numbers of children for whom legal paternity needs to be
established for the population as a whole. (National data on
paternity collected by the Office of Child Support Enforcement only
apply to those cases formally entered into the child support
system, referred to as the IV-D system.)
Birth certificates. One source of data about paternity is the
birth certificate but this has considerable limitations, in
addition to those just cited. In about half of the birth
certificates of non-marital children information is provided on the
father. However since laws in a few states, notably California and
Pennsylvania, permit the mother to name the unwed father on the
certificate without the father's permission, many of these fathers'
names on the certificate have no legal validity. (Most states only
allow the unwed father's name to be put on the certificate if he
and the child's mother sign a notarized affidavit of paternity.)
Paternity establishment estimates from the Current Population
Survey (CPS). Lewin/ICF researchers recently reviewed seven
national surveys and found that only one contained explicit
information on the paternity establishment status of the children,
the National Survey of Children. However in this survey, paternity
data was only collected for the 160 children in the third wave of
the survey, which was too small a sample for analysis (Aron, Barnow
& McNaught, 1989). The Lewin/ICF researchers then selected the
1986 CPS Alimony and Child Support Supplement as the most suitable
source since it did contain some indirect information on paternity
establishment .
The CPS supplement does not ask a direct question about the
paternity status of the children in the households surveyed. Thus
rates of paternity establishment had to be imputed from the unwed
mothers' responses about child support awards related to one
'reference' child. When the mother reported there was a support
award or agreement reached for this child, legal paternity was
assumed. All other situations were assumed not to have paternity
adjudicated in this study.
The authors point out that another limitation of this method of
estimation is that the CPS survey only collected information on the
current marital status of the mother over age 18. Thus
out-of-wedlock children whose mothers may have later married
someone other than their father or whose mothers were under 18 were
not included.
Within these limitations however the study estimated that just
under one quarter of the never-married mothers in the CPS sample
have established paternity for the reference child. The paternity
establishment rates for all children in the sample households were
assumed to be somewhat lower (Aron, Barnow & McNaught, 1989).
This study also identified a number of characteristics associated
with lower levels of paternity establishment namely: being black or
Hispanic, not completing high school, having three or more
children, having an annual family income below $5,000, not being in
the labor force the week of the survey, living in a central city,
residing in the west, and being 18 or 19 years of age. A somewhat
surprising finding was that there was no significant difference in
the level of paternity establishment between mothers who received
AFDC benefits at some point in 1985 and those who did not.
Trends in paternity establishment. There is evidence from several
sources that the rates of paternity establishment are improving
somewhat nationally. In April 1982, only 14.3% of unwed mothers
aged 18 and older had court-ordered support awards, by 1988 the
same CPS survey reported that 19.7 % have awards (Bureau of the
Census, 1985 and 1990). There has been a steady increase in
paternity adjudications nationally from 219,000 in 1984 to 336,000
in 1989 (OCSE, 1990).
Nevertheless there is tremendous variation across states and
counties in the numbers of paternities adjudicated. Some small
states established more paternities than some large states. For
example in 1987, in Utah, a low population state, 1,477 paternities
were legally established which was more than the 1,034 in Texas, a
high population state (HHS/OCSE, 1988). Presumably these wide
variations reflect, in large part, substantial differences in
states' effort and performance.
Rates of child support payments by unwed fathers. Surprisingly,
when the unwed mother does have a support award she is somewhat
more likely to receive the payment than are divorced or separated
mothers. In 1987, 83% of never-married mothers with awards
actually received support compared with 78% and 74% respectively of
the divorced and separated. While the mean dollar amount paid by
the unwed fathers is much less it constitutes a somewhat higher
percent of the unwed mother's total income.
Nationally the dollar amounts of child support collected (in
current dollars) has risen substantially in recent years, from $6.1
billion in 1981 to $10 billion in 1987 but the average real value
of child support awards has decreased. This may in part reflect
the fact that the pool of child support payments includes a larger
proportion of payments from unwed fathers (Garfinkel and McLanahan,
1990).
Profile of Unwed Fathers.
(Sources: Furstenberg and Harris, forthcoming; Lerman, 1986 & 1990;
Lerman and Ooms, eds. forthcoming; Lamb, & Elster,1986; Marsiglios,
1989; Parke and Neville, 1987; Sullivan, 1986 & 1990; Wattenberg,
1987; Wattenberg, Brewer & Resnik, forthcoming. )
Compared with the amount of information available about unwed
mothers, very little is known about the characteristics and
economic circumstances of unwed fathers with which to guide policy
decisions. There is no national source of data on absent parents:
a planned federally sponsored national survey of absent parents was
not launched even though a pilot survey of linked interviews
conducted with 547 custodial and non-custodial parents in 1985-86,
known as the SOAP study, demonstrated its feasibility (Sonenstein
and Calhoun, 1988).
There is only one study which provides information about a
nationally representative sample of young unwed fathers---the
National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Force Behavior of
Youth---which has been collecting information on a sample of young
men and women aged 14-22 in 1979 who have been interviewed on a
yearly basis since then. (In 1988 the survey added a study of the
young mothers' children.) This data is supplemented by several
smaller local surveys, program data and ethnographic studies to
provide a preliminary profile of the characteristics of unwed
fathers.
However there are some serious gaps in what is currently known
about unwed fathers. Apart from the NLSY most of these other
sources provide samples biased towards fathers who show some
interest in their child since the unwed fathers in these samples
were usually identified through the mothers. Very little is known
about the fathers who have no contact, or only hostile contact,
with their child's mother. Also the small scale studies have
focused most often on samples of young, urban, black unwed fathers.
Very little is known about older, or white unwed fathers and unwed
fathers who live in suburban, middle class neighborhoods, or rural
areas.
Finally, there is considerable inconsistency between data obtained
from non-custodial and from custodial parents. A major limitation
of all these studies is that information from the custodial and
non-custodial parent is not linked, except for the SOAP pilot
study. (This is important because non-custodial parents usually
report higher levels of child support and more frequent visits with
their child than do the custodial parents.)
A recently conducted study in Minnesota, funded by the Ford
Foundation, conducted face to face interviews with a sample of 200
unmarried mothers age 21 and under receiving AFDC and with the
fathers of their out-of-wedlock children. Emerging out of this
study will be profiles of avowers and disavowers of paternity and
recommendations for both policy and practice. The results of this
study will illustrate the usefulness of linked data to examine the
interactive processes that affect decision making about paternity
(Wattenberg, et. al. forthcoming.)
Preliminary findings from this study include:
--Fewer than 5% of the respondents indicated that the birth of the
child was the result of a casual encounter;
--the young parents living arrangements are constantly in flux;
--more than two thirds came from deeply troubled and traumatic
family situations from which they had actually run away or wanted
to do so;
--the placing of the father's name on the birth certificate had
deep significance;
--there was wide divergence in the accounts of the young unmarried
parents with respect to the fathers' financial contributions and
attachment to the child.
The findings of this small but growing body of information about
unwed fathers can not be summarized here. We will simply highlight
the data most relevant to unwed father's capacity to be financially
responsible, namely their education, income and employment
characteristics. We then draw on several descriptive studies to
try to understand the processes and factors involved in an unwed
fathers' acting responsibly.
Education and training.
(Sources: Lerman, 1986 and 1990; Marsiglio, 1989; Sullivan, 1986.)
Most unwed fathers are over 20 years of age. Of all non-resident
fathers age 22-30 in 1987 about five in ten had never married. A
much higher proportion of black non-resident fathers are never-
married, nearly 70%. Unwed fatherhood is largely a temporary
experience for young white and Hispanic men, but is likely to be a
more permanent status for many young blacks. This is one reason
why blacks account for over 60% of all young unwed fathers (Lerman,
1990).
Most studies suggest that young unwed fatherhood is associated with
lower levels of education but it is not yet possible to disentangle
cause and effect. Marsiglio's analysis of the NLSY data found that
young fathers are likely to have acquired less education than their
peers who did not father a child as a teenager. However he could
not find a clear association between a father's living with his
non-maritally conceived child and his school progress and
attainment. Many assume that the impact of having a child may be
a distracting and destabilizing force on a young man's education.
On the other hand, for some it may be a motivating and stabilizing
factor. In general Lerman found that young resident fathers
(whether married or unmarried) earn more income than non-resident
fathers with the same educational background (1990).
Lerman found that high school drop out rates and unemployment rates
were substantially higher among those who became unwed fathers
sometime between 1979 and 1984 than among those who did not become
unwed fathers. The largest and most consistent education gaps
showed up among whites. Whites who became unwed fathers were four
times as likely to have been high school drop outs than other young
men. They were also more likely to have been involved with drugs
and other criminal activities than their white peers who did not
become fathers. Black unwed fathers, on the other hand, were not
very different from their non father peers in terms of education,
drug use and criminal activity (Lerman, 1986).
Small studies suggest that, apparently due to cultural
expectations, Hispanic unwed fathers are more likely to drop out of
school, marry and get a job than black or white unwed fathers who
were more likely to remain in school and complete their education.
End of Part 1
.
|
| 165.7 | 1990 ENCOURAGING FATHERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE, part 2 | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:47 | 1421 |
|
1990 ENCOURAGING FATHERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE, part 2
TITLE:: ENCOURAGING FATHERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE: PATERNITY
ESTABLISHMENT, CHILD SUPPORT AND JOBS STRATEGIES
CYFERNET ID::IMPACT12
ENTRY DATE::
AUTHOR:: FAMILY IMPACT SEMINAR
ORGANIZATION:: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY
DOCUMENT TYPE:: PROCEEDINGS
DOCUMENT SIZE:: 165K OR 52 PAGES
PART 2 of 2 PARTS
To receive more information on the family impact seminar please
request CATALOG or OVERVIEW from the FAMILY_IMPACT section of
CYFERNET.
_________________________________________________________________
Employment, earnings and family income
Earnings of young adult males have fallen steadily since 1970 both
because young adult males are less likely to have jobs, and because
wages have fallen in real terms. Young unwed fathers' patterns of
employment are characterized by high levels of unemployment and
instability. They move in and out of the labor force and
frequently work only part-time. Many do not report their income.
However their patterns of employment do not differ markedly, as a
group, from other young adult males who are not fathers. In 1986
rates of unemployment for black male teenagers were 39.3% and black
young adults were 23.5%, much higher than the corresponding rates
for whites (16.3% and 9.2%).
Given this employment pattern it is not surprising that the median
income of young unwed absent fathers is very low and considerably
lower than the national average. (Nearly all reported income is
earned, since young adult non-disabled males, living apart from the
mothers of their children, receive few public benefits, although
some do receive food stamps.) Nevertheless, the large majority of
young unwed fathers live in their parental home or with other
relatives (this is especially true of black absent fathers). In
this case they generally receive in-kind subsidies from their
family and undoubtedly may pool their income and expenses with
other household members.
It seems appropriate then to compare their family household, income
with the family income of the unwed mothers. Analysis of the NLSY
data found that, in 1984, family incomes of these fathers living at
home averaged $23,000 to $25,000 which is about double the family
incomes of the young unwed mothers in the same survey (Lerman &
Ooms, 1988). A study in North Carolina of a sample of largely
black fathers identified by the child support system, essentially
confirmed these findings and added the point that these fathers
have little property or savings to fall back on in times of
unemployment. Both these studies report higher levels of child
support payments than are reported in the CPS data.
The Process of Behaving Responsibly
(Sources:Haskins et. al., 1985; Howe, forthcoming; Danzinger,
Kastner and Nickel, forthcoming; Leitch & Gonzalez, 1986; Smollar
& Ooms, 1988; Sullivan, 1986; Wattenberg, 1987, Wattenberg et. al.
forthcoming;)
The components of responsibility. There appears to be broad
agreement about what constitutes the minimal obligations of unwed
parenthood namely, legally establishing paternity and paying
regular child support until the child becomes adult. Marriage used
to be considered the responsible course of action but there is now
much less agreement that this is a wise and expected course,
especially for very young parents. Another view of responsibility
emphasizes in addition to financial responsibility the personal and
moral element, namely that unwed fathers should keep in personal
contact with their child and develop a positive relationship with
him or her.
Factors that influence responsible behavior. The extent and manner
in which an unwed father fulfills his financial and other
obligations to his child obviously depends on his own attitudes,
values, knowledge and psychological and financial resources. In a
recent analysis of links between family responsibilities and job
market outcomes Lerman found that while market factors, such as job
opportunities and job skills did have an impact on absent fathers'
payment of child support, a personal sense of responsibility,
perhaps reinforced by particular cultural expectations, also play
an important role (1990). Clearly many other individuals influence
the degree to which unwed fathers act responsibly towards their
child, most specifically the unwed mother herself, and also members
of her family, his family and the immediate community.
The unwed mother's attitude towards the unwed father. The unwed
mother's cooperation at several stages in the processes is clearly
essential and for this reason she retains a good deal of power in
the situation. Usually she will inform her partner that she is
pregnant and believes he is the father, she may initiate a
paternity or child support proceeding, and may identify him to AFDC
and child support enforcement officials. Further, the unwed
mother's parents' attitudes about the baby's father can have a
powerful influence on her own attitudes and her behavior towards
him.
Sometimes the mother (or her family) is ambivalent about, or
actively opposes, involving the baby's father in her baby's life in
any way. This may be for a number of reasons. Even when the
relationship was not a casual one, it may have ended or turned
sour, and she may already be involved with another man. The baby
may be a result of an incestuous or violent relationship or
incident. She and/or her family may be angry at the baby's father,
believe he is 'no good', and will bring only trouble. If he became
acknowledged as the baby's legal father, they fear he may then
assert rights to visit the child and so forth which they would not
want. The child is seen to 'belong' exclusively to its mother and
her family who assume total responsibility for him or her
In such situations the young unwed mother will not seek to
establish paternity or child support. If she applies for AFDC when
she is required to identify the baby's father she will either seek
'good cause' exceptions, claim she does not know the father's
whereabouts or use other delaying tactics. Local child support
administrators, in a national survey, reported that uncooperative
custodial parents was one of the three greatest barriers to
paternity establishment (Sonenstein, Holcomb & Seefeldt, 1990).
Where there is conflict between the parents the law supports the
father carrying out his responsibilities when she wants him to be
responsible, but does little to protect his rights when he wants to
be involved and the mother will not cooperate. Indeed the rights
of unwed fathers with regard to notice and consultation about
pregnancy decision making, and access to their children have not
been clearly established except with respect to adoption. In this
case, several Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the unwed
father's right to notice about his child's impending adoption only
in those cases when he has already demonstrated some interest in
the child (Howe, forthcoming).
On the other hand research suggests that often the unwed mother,
and her family welcome and indeed encourage the father's active
involvement and assistance with his child, but resist making it
legal and formal in order to protect the young father, or mother,
from what is perceived as a punitive and hostile bureaucratic
welfare and child support system.
An ethnographic study of an Hispanic and a black community in New
York city found that in the small number of cases studied,
typically both young parents and their families would negotiate the
kinds of support and assistance the father and his family would
provide. The father's paternity was fully acknowledged by the
families and community, and often his name was placed on the birth
certificate, but the paternity was never legally adjudicated for
child support purposes. Contact with the child support system was
generally avoided, apparently successfully ( Sullivan, 1986).
Similar patterns of frequent contact between father and child, and
his provision of various types of inkind support together with
mutual cooperation between the parents' families have also been
reported in other studies.
Program Barriers. What other factors account for the reluctance to
legally establish paternity and request a formal child support
order among so many unwed parents? One explanation frequently
cited is the lack of incentives for either party to get involved
with the formal service system. This includes the mother's worry
that the assistance she currently receives from the father and his
kin will be alienated once he is pursued by the authorities.
Moreover if she receives AFDC, any child support he pays goes to
reimburse AFDC, except for the $50 monthly pass through she is
permitted to keep. Financially she may be better off if he
continues to help her 'under the table'.
The North Carolina study findings were critical of this assumption
since in their sample, involvement of the father with the child
support system did not seem to alienate them from assisting their
children. In fact these fathers had more contact with their
children than any others reported in the literature (Haskins, et.
al. 1985).
Wattenberg's studies in Minnesota, affirm the importance of the
relationship between the two parents in paternity decisions. Her
studies also suggests that their ignorance of the law and of the
long run benefits to the child of paternity establishment was
perhaps the most salient factor explaining the lack of cooperation
of the young parents with paternity and child support proceedings.
This ignorance on the part of the young people and their families
was underscored by the ignorance, ambivalence and sometimes
outright hostility about paternity and child support demonstrated
repeatedly in interviews with staff of community social service
agencies, AFDC intake workers, hospital and school-based social
workers.(1987 and forthcoming). Instead of helping the young
father fulfil his legal responsibility these program staff either
actively or passively discouraged him from doing so.
Reports of teen pregnancy and parenting programs, and of programs
designed specifically to reach out to teen fathers make little
mention of any attempts to educate the young fathers about their
legal responsibilities or help him connect with the authorities,
again reflecting program's staff ignorance and ambivalence about
their establishing paternity and paying child support (Sander,
1986).
Many advocates and researchers also maintain that the cumbersome,
haphazard, confusing, inconsistent, lengthy and punitive tone of
many of the practices and procedures involved in establishing legal
paternity, child support awards and collection of payments were
highly significant barriers to unwed fathers' acting responsibly.
Many of the recent reforms at federal and state level have been
designed to overcome these administrative program barriers as will
be discussed later in this report.
Factors that facilitate responsibility. What has been learned
about those program and other factors that apparently help to
encourage paternal responsibility?
--- Living nearby. Fathers who live nearby are much more likely to
keep in touch and provide help. Frequent visiting is correlated
with provision of financial support.
---Timing of outreach to unwed fathers. Program staff have found
that young fathers seem to be most ready to be involved, and the
teen mother is most ready to involve him, late in the pregnancy and
right at the time of birth.
--- Male staff and services oriented to fathers needs. Recruitment
of young unwed fathers is often a full time activity. Teen
fatherhood programs were successful when they did extensive
outreach in the community, employed male staff to do the outreach,
involved fathers in prenatal care visits (had him monitor the fetal
heart for example) and offered them employment related counseling
and referral.
--- Employment. Having a job, or a steady source of income was
clearly associated with financial support to the child and with
personal contact. The unwed mothers, and their families, were much
more willing to encourage visiting if the father was contributing
financially.
In addition, the young unwed fathers were more likely to be
involved with their child if they had the support and encouragement
of their own parents and friends in the community. In many
communities there is strong support for the young fathers who meet
their responsibilities in informal ways, even while they steer
clear of formal systems of assistance and disapproval of those who
shirk them.
Although these findings are exploratory they are rich in
implications for policy and program design and further testing.
POLICY GOALS AND DILEMMAS
(Sources: Mellgren, forthcoming; Ooms and Herendeen, 1988; Monson
& McLanahan, forthcoming; Roberts, 1989; Smollar and Ooms, 1988;
Sullivan, 1990;)
The evolution of child support and paternity policy.
Policymakers current concern about unwed fathers has evolved from
several strands of research and advocacy. It was originally
subsumed under the growing concern about the financial
irresponsibility of non-custodial fathers. The first efforts to
strengthen child support enforcement in the sixties originated
largely from the desire to recoup some of the costs of the AFDC
program. from separated and divorced fathers. A specific interest
in paternity establishment and other policies related to unwed
fathers only emerged with the realization of the growing proportion
of out-of-wedlock births both in the general and in the AFDC
population, and from the growing public concern about teenage
pregnancy and parenthood. This concern centered exclusively on
teenage women until slowly their male partners began to come into
public focus.
The realization dawned that strategies designed for divorced and
separated families needed to be re-examined with respect to whether
they met the situation and needs of never-married families. In
1986, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, DHHS, in
collaboration with the Department of Labor, sponsored an
invitational conference which reviewed research, programs and
policy dilemmas and options focused on young unwed fathers (Smollar
and Ooms, 1988). Organizations in the private sector at the same
time were sponsoring meetings and providing technical assistance to
programs interested in young unwed fathers' paternity and child
support (Kastner & McKillop, 1988).
The original cost savings objective became expanded to viewing
improved child support enforcement as an essential part of a
multi-pronged strategy to alleviate the poverty and dependency of
female headed families (see Ellwood, 1988). As this policy has
evolved a new interest in fathers has emerged, not just as a source
of economic support but also as contributing to the psychological
wellbeing of their children. A considerable body of evidence has
emerged that traces the negative consequences of family disruption
and father absence upon children (Garfinkel and McLanahan, 1990;
Ooms & Herendeen, 1989). And an increased number of studies
focused on the important role of fathers in their children's
psychological development (Lamb, & Sagi, 1983). And, partly as a
result of the growing interest among adopted adults in their
biological parents' origins, there is a new awareness that
out-of-wedlock children may also have a desire, if not a right, to
know more about their fathers.
Current policy goals. The major objectives of current policy
towards unwed fathers can be summarized as follows:
l To improve the economic situation of children living in
single parent households.
l To lift some of the burden of public relief from the
shoulders of the government.
l To reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births. Education
and information activities about male responsibility together with
tightened enforcement of the support laws are viewed also as
strategies designed to discourage out of wedlock fathering. If
young men, it is argued, understood and valued the responsibilities
that accompanied fatherhood, and were aware that society would
enforce these responsibilities, they might be more careful to avoid
or postpone becoming fathers until they were prepared and able to
support them financially.
In addition some service providers and advocates believe that a
desirable program goal is to strengthen the contacts and
affectional bonds between children and their fathers in
never-married families. There is clearly an emerging policy
interest in examining whether the increased paternal contact and
involvement that may well result from the Family Support Act and
related policies will in fact improve life outcomes for the
children (Garfinkle and McLanahan, 1989).
Finally, the awareness that many young absent fathers were
themselves in precarious economic situations and had few resources
with which to be financially responsible led to an interest in
providing employment and training services to them in order to
enhance their wage earning capacity.
The benefits of legal paternity to the child:
The importance of establishing legal paternity was initially seen
as related to the first of these goals although the poor economic
circumstances of most young unwed fathers led many to be sceptical
of putting government resources into paternity establishment
activities. Hence state and county child support offices clearly
gave these cases lower priority since they had so little immediate
pay off in terms of increased child support collections. Moreover
there were no federal incentives to states pursue these time
consuming and difficult paternity cases.
However as fathers grow older their income tends to rise. A young
unemployed father of today, may become the successful real estate
agent of tomorrow. In fact in Lerman's recent analysis of NLSY
data he found that 60.6% of young absent fathers who were poor in
1980 were not poor six years later (1990). Thus, bringing an unwed
father into the system initially might well have long run economic
payoffs. In addition other short run and long run economic and
psychological benefits that accrue to the child from having
paternity legally established began to be made explicit. It is
important to note that these benefits apply to all out-of-wedlock
children of whatever income and background not only those who are
involved in the IV-D system. The benefits that are usually cited
are the following:
l Legal paternity is the first necessary step towards the
payment of child support which, as noted, may be minimal in the
short run, but more substantial later on.
l Once paternity is established the child may become eligible
for a variety of social security benefits if the father should die
or become disabled;
l The child may draw upon some military dependent benefits if
the father is employed in the armed services;
l The child may be covered under the father's employer provided
health plan. If this plan covers a marital child it must also
cover a non-marital child;
l The child may be eligible for dependent's benefits under
worker's compensation;
l The child can find out his family medical and genetic history
on his father's side which may become critically important to his
own or his children's health later on
l The child has all the rights of inheritance---such as to
property, life insurance etc.---just as any other child.
l The child may use his father's name. In addition once the
father's identity is known the child may then have the opportunity
at some point to develop a relationship with the father if he is
not already known.
Policy Dilemmas. Although there has been broad general support
across the political spectrum for increased governmental efforts to
enforce child support, policy development along these lines has met
with some resistance and debate from several quarters. For
example, some feminist advocates and representatives of social
service personnel are protective of the unwed mother's right to
decide how much contact she wants to have with her baby's father.
They are also worried that many current enforcement activities are
unnecessarily punitive and adversarial and may drive the father
away from contacts with his child
On the other hand, pulling in the opposite direction, father's
rights advocates have been heard to insist that all fathers have a
right to know that they have fathered a child, and urge that his
name should be required to be placed on the birth certificate. A
few urge that many unwed fathers have a right to be involved in the
decision about an out-of-wedlock pregnancy and be involved in
pregnancy decision counseling.(Shostak et. al., 1984 and
forthcoming). At the same time father's rights advocates are
vociferously opposing many of the new child support guidelines as
being unfair to the non-custodial parent, and insisting that
visitation rights are accorded along with the collection of child
support.
Many believe that the child's interest should be paramount and yet
it may often be lost sight of in the struggle between the parents'
interests. For example although the economic interest of the
mother and child may coincide in the short run, on other issues
they may be quite different. While a mother may decide that it is
better for her never to have to see her child's father again, or to
have minimal contact with him, the child may benefit from seeing
him.
As policymakers and program administrators proceed to implement
existing laws and regulations or consider modifying or expanding
upon them, these competing and conflicting concerns create many
dilemmas. The rights and interests of the child, unwed mothers and
fathers and society need to be taken into account and weighed.
Some of the questions that need to be wrestled with include:
---Should states require the establishment of paternity for all
out-of-wedlock children? How would this requirement be
implemented?
---To what extent should custodial mothers be required to have to
deal with their child's father? When is it in the best interest of
the child not to do so?
---In their eagerness to facilitate increased paternity
adjudications, are state laws sufficiently careful to guard the due
process rights of men who may have been unjustly named as the
father by the unwed mother?
---When employment and training programs specifically target unwed,
or non-custodial fathers does this create perverse incentives that
further weaken the institution of marriage? Does this take away
resources that would otherwise go to assist the unwed mothers?
POINTS OF INTERVENTION: A POLICY CONTINUUM FOR ENCOURAGING UNWED
FATHERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE
(Sources: Child Support Technology Transfer Project, 1989; Lerman
and Ooms, forthcoming; Roberts, 1989; Smollar and Ooms, 1988;
Sullivan, 1990)
From the research findings presented above it is clear that the
process of encouraging responsible behavior from unwed fathers
consists of a continuum of several possible points of intervention
which are related sequentially to each other. Yet current efforts
are fragmented and piecemeal. At the community level, many
encouraging new approaches are targeted on only one aspect or stage
of the process, although they are interrelated and cumulative in
their effects. If these efforts are isolated from one another, and
do not reinforce each other, the effectiveness of any particular
efforts may be reduced.
On Table 1, page 27,.we outline this continuum and discuss its
various elements below. We identify any FSA provisions
specifically relevant to each stage and also briefly describe some
of the promising approaches and strategies that are being tried out
in different parts of the country. There are many provisions of
the Family Support Act that affect unwed parents---such as
improvements in the parent locate services, establishing time
frames for IV-D services and for distribution of support
collections, improving reporting of data and so forth---that are
not mentioned below as they are not addressed specifically to
issues concerning the non-marital status of the parents
Points of Intervention:
#1 Preparation for Fatherhood.
There is growing agreement that young people need to be educated
about the responsibilities of parents in general and fathers in
particular; about specific laws related to paternal
responsibilities and their application to married, divorced,
separated, remarried and unmarried fathers; and about the benefits
to children, fathers and family life of strong, positive,
father-child relationships.
Related Family Support Act Provisions. States are permitted to
draw down federal matching funds to use for IV-D related
information and publicity campaigns and many IV-D offices have done
so. Although most such campaigns have to date targeted parents in
need of IV-D services there is no reason why they could not be
aimed at a broader audience---teenagers in general, their parents
and community leaders, and service providers
Promising Strategies. The initiative for developing innovative
strategies is being assumed largely by the private sector,
sometimes in collaboration with county child support offices. Some
existing strategies include:
l Community awareness poster campaigns and media spots promoting
'male responsibility'. (For example the activities sponsored by
the National Urban League and Children's Defense Fund).
l Community consortia of interested agencies and professionals
who sponsor the development of curriculum units and other materials
on paternity to be incorporated into school's sex and family life
education courses and/or into adult workshops promoted in the
workplace or community organizations. (For example the Seattle and
San Francisco Bay Area consortium activities described in McKillop,
Kastner and Perry, 1989.)
#2 Prenatal Care.
Information and education needs to be provided to pregnant unwed
mothers, their male partners and sometimes, if the expectant
parents are young, to their own parents about the benefits of
paternity establishment and the laws relating to unwed father's
rights and responsibilities.
Related Family Support Act Provisions. There are no provisions in
the Act that specifically affect this point of intervention. This
is ironic since it is the period at which unwed fathers seem most
likely to be interested and willing to be involved with their
child. Neverthless, as noted in #1 above, federal matching funds
can be used for IV-D information and publicity campaigns which
could be targeted to places and professionals involved in providing
pre-natal care.
Promising Strategies. Although written materials such as pamphlets
and flyers can and should be developed specifically for the young
parents-to-be and their families, it is equally important to inform
and educate the health care and social service professionals with
whom they come into contact, usually several times, over the course
of the pregnancy. This includes school nurses, and social workers,
nurses and physicians in prenatal clinics and community based
health care centers, teen pregnancy programs and private doctors'
offices. A campaign to target these service providers should be
planned in collaboration with the relevant local or state
professional membership associations
Although some communities are undoubtedly carrying out activities
like these, none are mentioned in the literature reviewed for this
report. However an important first step is being taken by the
acting director of the federal Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Dr
Vincent Hutchins, who together with the director of OCSE is sending
copies of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement's booklet
for the public," Handbook on Child Support Enforcement" to all
state maternal and child health directors ( OCSE, 1985). In the
accompanying letter they urge them to work with state child support
agencies in joint efforts to reach unwed mothers in hospitals and
other medical settings with information about the benefits of
establishing paternity and assistance with the process of doing so.
In addition some preliminary contacts are being made between
members of the national network of teen pregnancy and parenting
programs and the staff of the Center for the Support of Children.
#3 Birth Registration.
The institution at which a birth occurs, or the attending person at
a home based delivery, is required by state law to file a birth
certificate for each live birth. This provides an opportunity for
the unwed father's name to be placed on the birth certificate. In
most states this procedure is entirely voluntary and involves both
parent's signing a separate notarized paternity affidavit which is
filed with the birth certificate. Several European countries
however require paternity establishment for all out-of-wedlock
children. Wisconsin, recently passed a law to require all unwed
parents to put the unwed father's name on the birth certificate,
but it is unclear how this requirement is being implemented (Munson
and McLanahan, forthcoming).
Family related information reported on the form is minimal, and may
be provided by the mother, her spouse or some other appropriate
person and there is no state that requires that the unwed father's
name be placed on the certificate. Detailed medical information
related to the pregnancy, birth and infants status is filled out on
the 'long form' section of the certificate and used for state vital
statistics reports and research purposes. (States then, on a
voluntary basis, forward much of this medical information to the
federal Office of Vital Statistics.)
Related Family Support Act provisions. The Family Support Act, in
a little noticed provision, requires that states collect the social
security numbers of both parents as part of the process of issuing
birth certificates. Exceptions can be made in special
circumstances (such as an immigrant who does not have such a
number). The numbers must not appear on the birth certificates and
can only be used by the IV-D program. This provision is designed
to apply to all fathers, married or not, however it is not clear
how and whether a state can require the social security number of
an unwed father until paternity has been formally established.
(The purpose of this provision is related to helping locate absent
parents, since apparently many single mothers do not know the
social security number of their child's father.)
This new requirement is causing a good deal of controversy and
confusion. It is quite unclear, for example, what sanctions could
be applied to parents who do not cooperate whether and how a state
can collect the social security number of an unwed father before
paternity is established. Frederick King, the President of the
National Association for State Vital Records and Health Statistics,
said that states are having real problems with what in their view
is a poorly conceived provision and they are still planning how to
carry it out. However states will undoubtedly find ways to
cooperate with this requirement in due course. In King's view it
creates a very dangerous precedent as the collection of vital
statistics has always been considered a function of state
governments (telephone communication).
Promising Strategies.
Some localities have decided to make an intensive effort to
establish paternity around the time of the out-of-wedlock child's
birth. In some situations an agent of the IV-D office attempts to
meet with the mother and putative father in the hospital to
initiate the paternity adjudication process.
The most ambitious and successful of these efforts was launched
statewide in Washington state in 1988. The Paternity Affidavit
Project was an outgrowth of the recommendations of two appointed
Governor's bodies, a commission on accountability and efficiency in
government and the other a task force on child support enforcement.
These independently came to the conclusion that the paternity
establishment process must be made more efficient, more cost
effective, less formal and more timely. A newly enacted law
requires, in the case of an out-of-wedlock birth, "that the
physician, midwife or their agent must provide an opportunity for
parents to sign the paternity affidavit." The process is entirely
voluntary. And if the father signs and then changes his mind
later, he can ask for a blood/genetic test at any time (Child
Support Report, Sept. 1990).
The State Office of Child Support supplies the hospitals with two
informational brochures, one to give to each parent, detailing
their parental rights and responsibilities; it has provided some
training to birth records clerks and other medical personnel across
the state; and reimburses the hospitals $20 towards the cost.of
each filed affidavit.
Initial results are very encouraging. In 1987, 1800 paternity
affidavits were signed, in 1988, 2200 but in 1989, only one year
after the project began, 5100 affidavits were signed (out of 14,000
out- of-wedlock births.) The other positive result is that the
length of time between filing the affidavit to establishing a
support award has been greatly reduced. In Washington it used to
take between 1-3 years from the date of the child's birth, to the
issuance of a support order, it is now taking, on average, only 95
days (telephone communication).
It should be noted that Washington state has at the same time also
launched a number of community education and outreach projects
including the Seattle Consortium noted above.
#4. Paternity Adjudication Process.
(Sources: CSTTP, 1989; Sonenstein, Holcomb & Seefeldt, 1990;
Roberts, 1989;)
If the father's name is not placed on the birth certificate at
birth, the mother can always get her own lawyer to pursue paternity
later on. However if she applies for help from the government
there are two ways in which this process may be triggered. First,
a mother may apply independently to the Title I-D office for their
help in locating the absent father, in establishing paternity and
obtaining a court order for support. (It is still not well known
that IV-D services are available for a small fee to the general
public.)
Alternatively, when an unwed mother applies for AFDC, she is
required to identify the father and cooperate in locating his
whereabouts. In this case the IV-D Office of Child Support
Enforcement receives a referral for them to initiate the paternity
process.
For a number of years state and local systems for establishing
paternity have come under severe criticism for their inefficiency,
ineffectiveness.and perceived punitiveness. A recent survey of
local paternity practices provides a vivid illustration of some of
the structural factors that contribute to the lackluster
performance of many of these systems (Sonenstein, Holcomb and
Seefeldt, 1990).
There is definitely a movement underway to reform many of the
features which have drawn complaints. Nevertheless the survey
found a great deal of variation between states in the basic
administration of the program, authority for which is general
divided, in different ways between three separate agencies located
in at least two branches of government---the welfare, AFDC office,
the child support agency (often, but not always, located
administratively together in the state human services department
although seldom co-located in the same building) and various
divisions of the court. Most commonly the IV-D programs contract
out the paternity establishment functions to some kind of legal
agency which is partly what contributed in many jurisdictions to
creating an adversarial overtone to the entire process.
The study authors comment that successful paternity establishment
requires the complex interconnection of actions across a number of
agencies, and at each transfer point there is a chance for the case
to become lost or delayed or hang in limbo with nobody knowing who
is responsible. (Sonenstein, et. al. 1990). In addition states
have had no fiscal incentives to give these cases anything other
than the lowest priority.
Related provisions of the Family Support Act. For the first time
federal law has shown evidence of getting serious about paternity
establishment. A number of provisions provided both carrots and
sticks to states designed to remedy some of the problems just
outlined above. These included:
l The federal reimbursement rate for the costs of genetic tests
in contested cases is increased to 90% ( "the carrot"). All parties
to contested suits must submit to genetic tests.
l By October 1st, 1991, each state is required to meet certain
performance standards for paternity establishment, and these
standards are expressed in terms of specific numeric goals based on
three different formulas ("the stick").
l AFDC recipients must be informed by the IV-D agency of the
benefits of establishing paternity;
l All states which have not already done so are exhorted to
implement simple procedures for establishing paternity in
noncontested cases and to have civil procedures available for
handling contested cases.
l Federal regulations set time frames within which states IV-D
agencies must respond to requests for paternity services. The IV-D
agency must file for paternity establishment or complete service of
process to establish paternity within 90 calendar days from the
date of locating the alleged father; and paternity must be
established or the alleged father excluded as a result of genetic
tests and/or legal process within one year of the successful
service of process or the child reaching 6 months of age.
Promising Strategies.
A number of states and localities have clearly instituted more
efficient management procedures and moved to expedite, simplify and
decriminalize the process of establishing paternity. The success
of these efforts is reflected in the steady increase in paternity
adjudications already notes . However the extreme variations
between states and localities which persist are still troubling.
There have been several studies of states' paternity establishment
performance which identify promising practices, including one by
the HHS Office of the Inspector General The report of this study
concluded that while the most frequent key improvements made in
sites' procedures included improved case processing and management
and streamlining of case adjudication "top management commitment
was the most-reported paternity establishment effectiveness factor"
(OIG, 1990, p.4).
The Center for the Support of Children, which operates the Child
Support Technology Transfer Project under contratc with the U.S.
OCSE, has outlined the key elements of a model using a simplified,
four stage process for achieving consent to paternity built upon
the best practices they observed in providing technical assistance
to six state IV-D offices. At each stage of this process paternity
may be acknowledged and a support order obtained. Only if the
process reaches the fourth stage is a court appearance involved
(Child Support Technology Transfer Project, 1989).
Localities which have implemented these kinds of processes report
much higher percentages of voluntary consents and fewer appearances
in court. In many states and localities, if both parents are in
agreement the consent order and support award can be issued in a
notarized agreement on the same day. In some states however, if
either parent is a minor, the process becomes more complicated as
a guardian has to be appointed and involved.
In contested cases, localities are also instituting simplified,
civil procedures while safeguarding the non-custodial parents'
rights, which often include on-site, same day genetic testing (for
example in Prince George's County, MD and in Washington D.C.).
#5 Child support awards and collection.
(Sources: Danzinger, Kastner,& Nickel forthcoming; Pirog-Good,
forthcoming; Roberts, 1989; Smollar and Ooms, 1988.)
The process of obtaining a support order also varies from state to
state. In some it is issued by judges or quasi-judicial officers,
in others an administrative agency will set the amount. Until
recently the amount was left to the discretion of the person who
set the award and amounts varied greatly even for families in
similar circumstances. The 1984 Child Support Amendments required
all states to adopt guidelines for setting child support awards,
but they did not have to be binding.
A major problem in setting the award in cases where the parents had
never been married was that so often the father was found to be
unemployed or in a low wage job. Thus, often the case was
dismissed, no award was established and no payments were made.
Advocates and others have suggested that once a case gets to this
stage, it is important that some kind of token award be set even if
only a dollar or two a week, to establish the pattern of obligation
(See Smollar and Ooms, 1986; Danzinger et. al. forthcoming;). The
advantage of this strategy is that it would demonstrate official
recognition and reward for informal community practices.
States make no written distinction between minors, teenagers and
older adult unwed and non-custodial fathers in enforcement
practices. In some states the support orders of young men are
enforced with automatic income withholding, the interception of
income tax refunds, property liens, credit bureau reporting and,
when in contempt of court, jail. In many state and localities, in
practice however, teenage fathers are not typically prosecuted, and
in others they are not liable for support (Pirog-Good,
forthcoming).
Related Family Support Act provisions. The 1988 Act strengthened
the requirements of the 1984 reform by requiring that the state
guidelines be used as a rebuttable presumption of the correct
amount. In addition the state must review these guidelines at
least once every four years. There is no mention in the Act of
guidelines that would be especially tailored to meet the needs of
young unwed fathers such as token awards or credit given for
in-kind assistance. Judges however would have discretion to rebut
the presumptive guidelines in special circumstances when they
believe the guidelines suggested are not appropriate in an
individual case, and provide the reasons in writing
By October 1993, the state must automatically review and adjust
under the guidelines, all award orders for AFDC cases and, at the
request of the parents for non-AFDC cases, at least once every
three years. However the procedures for modifying support awards
remain somewhat unclear. This is an important issue for
never-married cases since research suggests that within a few
years, most young absent fathers moved out of poverty (Lerman,
1990). This may be another argument for setting token awards. It
is hard to readjust a support order when one was never established
in the first place.
One of the most radical reforms of the new legislation was its
requirement that all new support orders be collected through
automatic wage withholding unless both parties agree to an
alternate agreement or there is a finding of good cause for not
doing so. This provision is being phased in and applied to cases
handled by the state IV-D agency as of November 1st, 1990, and to
all non- IV-D cases by January 1, 1994. There are no discussions
in the literature about how these provisions will affect unwed
fathers specifically. One can speculate however, that to the
extent that their employment is part-time, unstable and may be
'under the counter'--which many studies suggest is the case for the
young unwed father---wage withholding will be difficult to
implement. However the regulations provide for these cases to be
reviewed periodically.
Promising Strategies.
One program, said to be unique in the country, the Teen Alternative
Parenting Program in Indianapolis, has developed an innovative
strategy and set of services specifically designed to improve long
run child support compliance among young fathers. Set up in 1986
in collaboration with the local child support office, the program
encourages the teen participants to pay part, or all of their
weekly child support obligation (typically set as the minimum of
$25 a week) through " in kind" payments. These consist of credits
given for maintaining a regular visitation schedule for his child,
babysitting, continuing school or pursuing GED and participating in
parenting classes or vocational training classes. Program staff
work with the young fathers to become involved in various
education, training and job search activities. A major goal of the
program is to change the nature of the relationship between the
child support system and unwed fathers from a stance which is
perceived as adversarial to one that is supportive and
facilitative.
Initial results from a preliminary evaluation study of the project
suggest that when the value of "in-kind" contributions are
included, those participating in the TAPP program outperform the
comparison group in reimbursing AFDC. These results are tentative
since the numbers of participants were small and it was difficult
to get a valid comparison group of young fathers who did not enter
the program . Moreover the desired long run outcomes cannot yet be
assessed. Nevertheless the program appears to be a low cost
alternative to traditional approaches which has considerable
promise (Pirog-Good, forthcoming).
Some states have established guidelines to require a minimum
support order so that however poor the father is, he is expected to
contribute a minimal amount. And there is nothing in the FSA to
prevent a state from developing guidelines legislation which would
take into account certain special circumstances such as those of a
young unwed father and permit token awards or "credit" systems such
as implemented in the TAPP demonstration program.
#6 Enhancing Income through JOBS-type programs.
(Sources: Lerman and Ooms, 1988, MDRC, 1990; Ooms & Herendeen,
1988; P/PV, 1990; )
It has often been observed that a major reason for unwed father's
failure to pay child support , or to be interested in establishing
paternity, is that as a group they are generally poorly educated,
lack job skills and earn little or no regular income. What jobs
they can get are usually low paying. Thus there has been
considerable interest expressed in enhancing these fathers long run
ability to pay child support through enrolling them in job
training, education and employment related programs. In the past
youth employment and training programs have not specifically
targeted fathers. Indeed most did not even collect any data on the
participants' family responsibilities.
Relevant Family Support Act provisions. The original Senate bill,
Title I which established the JOBS program included a provision
which would have permitted states to offer JOBS services to the
non-resident fathers of AFDC children. In the conference
negotiations this provision was deleted in part because there was
insufficient evidence documenting the benefits of these programs
for non-resident fathers. (There was evidence of the benefits of
work/welfare programs for AFDC mothers.) Thus, as a substitute,
the final Act included a provision that instructs the Secretary of
HHS to issue waivers to up to five states, allowing them to provide
services under the JOBS program to " non-custodial parents who are
unemployed and unable to meet their child support obligations."
These demonstrations must be formally evaluated.
Promising Strategies.
Across the country a number of localities have begun to plan and
conduct pilot employment and training programs targeted on
non-custodial fathers. Initially they have faced considerable
problems with recruitment and motivation especially for the young
unwed fathers. Two over arching demonstration projects, national
in scope, are infusing new monies and ideas into some of these
efforts and will contribute considerably to the knowledge of what
works for this population. The MDRC project is specifically
related to implementation of the Family Support Act , the Public
Private Ventures project is not, but the lessons learned in this
project will be highly relevant for welfare reform. These two
ambitious projects are working together to assure that their
efforts are complementary.
Parents' Fair Share Demonstration . To date (11/90) the RFP for
this five site demonstration has not yet been issued by the Family
Support Administration. However, with private funds from the Pew
Charitable Trust and the Ford Foundation and, in collaboration with
the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S.
Department of Labor, the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation (MDRC) has already launched the initial stages of the
Parents' Fair Share Demonstration. Its first step has been to
conduct some exploratory activities to help in the design of
program models for these proposed demonstrations. MDRC will also
conduct the required evaluation of these demonstrations.
In its initial planning effort, MDRC identified a number of
localities who have been experimenting with similar approaches and
held an exploratory meeting in June 1990 with representatives from
these sites, child support enforcement officials, researchers and
others to review and discuss the goals, design options and
experiences to date.
Among the issues discussed at this meeting were the following:
---The group of fathers potentially eligible for such programs is
very diverse and includes men who have the ability to pay, but do
not; men who pay but do so 'under the table'; and men who are
unemployed and without income. It includes divorced, separated and
never married fathers and fathers of all ages. This raises many
questions about which type of fathers should be targeted and what
kinds of services does each of these sub-groups need etc.
--- Two basic design strategies emerge , the "stick" and the
"carrot". In some programs participation is required, or offered
as an alternative to jail, by the courts or IV-D office for
non-compliant fathers. In other programs participation is on a
voluntary basis and offered to fathers who are willing but unable
to pay support. Recruitment is achieved by reaching out into the
community, referrals from the OCSE, and other agencies.
---A wide range of services can, and have been offered, including
many services related to the participants' parent status that are
not provided by traditional employment and training programs. to
men (but sometimes have been in programs designed for mothers).
These include parenting classes, services related to paternity and
child support, mediation and counseling services ( in situations of
conflict between the parents over visitation or other issues),
parenting education programs and alcohol and other drug counseling,
and treatment referral services.
---Many agencies and individuals need to collaborate effectively
across traditional program and professional boundaries to make such
programs work.
MDRC has also held three focus group discussions with unwed and
noncustodial fathers to solicit their views on the design of
possible programs. Finally, MDRC staff are working with
consultants who are preparing background papers on the labor market
experience of low income unwed and noncustodial fathers,
administrative practices in child support enforcement which could
affect implementation of programs for fathers, and the incentives
mothers and fathers face under the public assistance and child
support enforcement systems.
The Young Unwed Fathers' Demonstration Project.
Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) is launching a six site, community
based, pilot project designed to learn how to reach young unwed
fathers and enable them to move towards responsible adulthood and
parenthood. It is based on two years of study into the problems of
these young fathers and of the experience of programs that have
been working with them. The project has received substantial
initial funding from the C.S. Mott Foundation. The demonstration's
target population is fathers and expectant fathers between the ages
of 16 and 25 who are unemployed and eligible for JTPA services.
As a result of the activities conducted in its first planning phase
in 1989-90, P/PV staff selected six sites from a total of 17
original proposals submitted by community organizations. The sites
represent considerably regional and geographic diversity. Each
site will receive $50,000 in seed money but the bulk of the
operating funds will come from local public and private resources.
Each site must serve a minimum of 50 young men over an 18 month
period.
Each site plan meets certain core requirements which include
services that provide:
---access for young fathers to employment and training activities
that lead to "good" jobs at high wages;
---involvement in classes, mentoring and other activities built
upon a particular fatherhood/parenting curriculum developed by
P/PV;
---work with young fathers to declare paternity and pay child
support;
---continue contact with the young fathers over an 18 month period,
including after they are employed;
---ongoing counseling and other supportive services including legal
assistance, referrals for health care etc.
In addition the six pilot sites have considerable flexibility to
test a variety of services and recruitment strategies. For
example, two sites will take participants whose participation has
been mandated by the IV-D agency and the courts, the others will
get referrals from a variety of sources whose participation is
voluntary.
P/PV staff will provide technical assistance to the sites and
design and conduct the evaluation which will include an outcome and
implementation study, cost and funding analysis, and an
ethnographic study. It was felt that the demonstration's
exploratory nature precluded an impact study. However at the end
of this pilot, P/PV expects to design a program model based on what
has been learned and move to a larger impact demonstration using a
random design approach.
The sites chosen are: Pinellas Private Industry Council, Clearwater
Florida; Cleveland Works, Cleveland, Ohio; Fresno Private Industry
Council, Fresno, California; Friends of the Family, Annapolis,
Maryland; Goodwill Industries, Racine, Wisconsin; Philadelphia
Children's Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR RESEARCH AND DEBATE.
The implementation of the Family Support Act provides an excellent
opportunity to develop some research and evaluation activities to
answer a number of compelling questions.about the impact and cost
effectiveness of these system reforms on paternity rates and child
support payments. In addition many are suggesting that the effects
of these activities on the relationships between the father and
child, and on relationships between the parents and the child's
wellbeing also need to be studied (Garfinkle and McLanahan, 1989).
Given the serious gaps and inadequacy of the information available
on absent parents many believe that the decision to cancel the DHHS
sponsored planned Absent Parent survey should urgently be
reconsidered. In addition it is important that improvements in the
current data collection activities be made, such as those being
suggested for the CPS Alimony and Child Support survey in the
recent Lewin/ICF study attempting to estimate paternity rates
(Aron, et. al., 1989).
In addition a review of the various stages and points of
intervention presented in this report suggests several broader
questions about the assumptions, focus and direction of
current.policy need to be debated and discussed.
At present, most of the demonstration and evaluation money is being
invested into the end stage of the continuum of responsibility,
namely the employment and training programs for non-custodial
fathers. Two questions need to be raised. First, clearly these
programs are an important investment in human capital. But their
success in recruiting and retaining the unwed fathers depends
largely on whether paternity has been established and on the
parents' attitude to the father's involvement. However research
suggests that the willingness of both unwed parents to father's
involvement is greatest around the time of birth Second, each
point of intervention is related to the next. Success at one point
makes the next stage much easier to accomplish. This suggests that
more attention should be paid to the earlier stages of the process
and to coordinate efforts across stages. Policymakers at federal
and state level should consider:
l Targeting increased resources on broad community education,
prenatal care and hospital based strategies which,the Washington
state experience suggests, may have considerable pay off in terms
of increased numbers of voluntary paternity adjudications at or
near the birth of the child.
l Saturating some communities, or states, with an across
systems effort that targets each stage simultaneously. For
example, new employment and demonstration programs should be
coordinated with intensive community educational outreach and
programs that work with health care and social service personnel to
reach young people, in general and expectant and new unwed parents.
Finally many of the principles underlying the recent discussion and
policy reforms are based on the assumption that it would be better
for nearly all children born out-of-wedlock to have paternity
legally established, yet the law only requires it for AFDC
children. Other children may benefit from current policy only if
their mothers agree with this goal and take the initiative to
achieve it. There are historical reasons for this situation
related to policymakers initial interest in child support reform
emanating simply from a desire to cut welfare budgets. The
resulting two-tier system suggests a double standard that may not
reflect.the current intention or judgments of policymakers or the
public. The current system in effect means that "the privacy issue
disproportionately affects poor women and women of color," (Munson
& McLanahan, forthcoming).
l Policymakers and advocates should initiate a debate on
whether the goals of current paternity and child support policy
should be universalized to apply to the entire population. This
debate should identify both positive and negative aspects of such
a policy and ways in which it might be implemented.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Aron, L.Y., Barnow, B.S., McNaught, W., Paternity Establishment
Among Never-Married Mothers: Estimates from the 1986 Current
Population Survey Alimony and Child Support Supplement. Report
prepared by Lewin /ICF for Office of Income and Security Policy,
ASPE/DHHS. November 1989.
Bureau of the Census, Child Support and Alimony: 1983. Current
Population Reports, Series P-23, No.148. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1986.
Bureau of the Census, Child Support and Alimony: 1985. Current
Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 152. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1987.
Bureau of the Census, Child Support and Alimony: 1987. Current
Population Reports (CPS) Series P-23, No. 167. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990.
Child Support Report, "Involved from the Start: In-hospital
Paternity Establishment," in Child Support Vol XII NO.7 September
1990. Publication of the National Child Support Enforcement
Reference Center MS OCSE/RC, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20447.
Child Support Technology Transfer Project (CSTTP), A Guide to
Initiating a Paternity Consent Process. Monograph prepared under
contract. with OCSE/FSA/DHHS, June 1989. Available from the Office
of Child Support Enforcement Reference Center, MS OCSE/RC, 370
L'Enfant Promenade, SW. Washington, D.C. 20447.
Committee on Ways and Means, Overview of Entitlement Programs. 1990
Green Book. Background Materials and Data on Programs Within the
Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of
Representatives June 1990. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1990.
Danzinger, S.K., Kastner, C.K., Nickel, T. "Child Support from
Young Single Fathers: Problems, Process, and the Promise of New
Policies and Programs," chapter in Young Unwed Fathers: Policy
Dilemmas and Options edited by Robert Lerman and Theodora Ooms.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, forthcoming.
Ellwood, D. Poor Support: Poverty and the American Family. New
York, N.Y.: Basic Books, 1988.
Furstenberg, F.F. and Harris, K.M., "When Fathers Matter, Why
Fathers Matter: The Impact of Paternal Involvement on the Children
of Adolescent Mothers," in Young Unwed Fathers: Policy Dilemmas
and Options, edited by Robert Lerman and Theodora Ooms.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, forthcoming.
Garfinkle, I. and McLanahan, S., The Effects of the Child Support
Provisions of the Family Support Act of 1988 on Child Well-Being.
Discussion paper. #901-89 Institute for Research on Poverty,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, March, 1990.
Haskins, R., Dobelstein, A.W., Akin, J.S., Schwartz, J.B.,
Estimates of National Child Support Collections Potential and the
Income Security of Female-Headed Families. Final Report for OCSE
prepared by the Bush Institute for Child and Family Policy,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. April, 1985.
Available from National Child Support Enforcement Reference Center,
MS OCSE/RC, 370, L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington D.C. 20447.
Howe, R., "Legal Rights and Obligations of Young Unwed Fathers: An
Uneven Evolution," chapter in Young Unwed Fathers: Policy Dilemmas
and Options edited by Robert Lerman and Theodora Ooms.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, forthcoming.
Kastner, C., McKillop, L. et al. Child Support Services for Young
Families: Current Issues and Future Directions. Proceedings of
Forum on Child Support Services for Young Families. 1988 Available
from the Center for the Support of Children, 5315 Nebraska Avenue,
N.W., Washington D.C. 20015.
Lamb, M.E., and Elster, A. eds. Adolescent Fatherhood. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.
Lamb, M.E., and Sagi, A., eds. Fatherhood and Family Policy.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.
Lerman R. and Ooms, T. Family Influences on Transitions to the
Adult Job Market, paper commissioned by and available from, Youth
and America's Future: The William T. Grant Foundation Commission on
Work, Family and Citizenship, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20036. 1988.
Lerman, R. I.,** A National Profile of Young Unwed Fathers: Who Are
They and How Are They Parenting?" Paper prepared for conference
held at Catholic University in October 1986, sponsored by
ASPE/HHS. Available from Project SHARE , c/o Family Support
Administration, DHHS.
Lerman, R.I. and Ooms, Theodora J, eds. Young Unwed Fathers: Policy
Dilemmas and Options, Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
forthcoming.
Lerman, R.I. Child Support and Earnings: A Report on the Links
Between Family Responsibilities and Job Market Outcomes. Report to
ASPE/DHHS June 1990 Available from Robert Lerman Ph.D., Chairman,
Economics Department, American University, Washington DC
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, The Parent's Fair
Share Demonstration: A Test of Employment and Training Services
for Noncustodial Parents. Project Overview. Available from MDRC,
Three Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016.
Marsiglio, W., "Adolescent Fathers in the United States: Their
Initial Living Arrangements, Marital Experience and Educational
Outcomes," in Family Planning Perspectives, Vol.21, No.1,
January/February 1989, pp. 240-251.
McKillop, L.T., Kastner, C.K., Perry, R.A., Planning A Community
Response to Child Support and Family Responsibility Issues: A
Technical Assistance Handbook. June, 1989. Available from Center
for the Support of Children, 5315 Nebraska Avenue, NW. Washington,
DC 20015.
Mellgren, L. "Federal Programs and Policy Questions Related to
Young Unwed Fathers; An Unfinished Agenda," chapter in Young Unwed
Fathers: Policy Dilemmas and Options edited by Robert Lerman and
Theodora Ooms. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, forthcoming.
Monson, R.A. and McLanahan, S. "A Father for Every Child:
Dilemmas of Creating Gender Equality in a Stratified Society," a
paper prepared for the Institute for Women's Policy Research
second annual research conference held in Washington D.C. in June
1990. Proceedings will be available from IWPR,1400 20th Street
N.W., Suite 104, Washington D.C. 20036.
National Center for Health Statistics,(NCHS) U.S. Public Health
Service, Hospitals' and Physicians' Handbook on Birth Registration
and Fetal Death Reporting, October 1987. Washignton D.C.:
Departnment of Health and Human Services. No. (PHS) 87-1107.
Nichols-Casebolt, A., Klawitter, M., Child Support Enforcement
Reform: Can It Reduce the Welfare Dependency of Families of
Never-Married Mothers? Institute for Research on Poverty
Discussion Paper #895-89, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
September 1989.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Handbook on Child Support
Enforcement, Available from
National Child Support Enforcement Reference Center, Family Support
Administration, MS OCSE/RC, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20447.
Office of Child Support Enforcement(OCSE) Annual Reports to the
Congress. Available from the national Child Support Reference
Center.
Office of Inspector General, DHHS Effective Paternity Establishment
Practices: A Technical Report. and Executive Report. OAI
06-89-00911 Office of the Inspector General, Office of Analysis
and Inpections. January 1990. Washington, D.C.: Department of
Health and Human Services,
Ooms, T and Herendeen, L. Young Unwed Fathers and Welfare Reform.
Background briefing report prepared for seminar held on Novmeber
18, 1988 in the U. S. Capitol. Washington, D.C.: Family Impact
Seminar, 1988.
Ooms, T. and Herendeen, L. Teenage Parenthood, Poverty and
Dependency: Do We Know How to Help? Background briefing report
prepared for seminar held on October 13, 1989 in the U.S. Capitol.
Washington, D.C.: Family Impact Seminar, 1989.
Parke, R. and Neville, B. "Teenage Fatherhood," in Risking the
Future: Adolescent Sexuality, Pregnancy and Childbearing, edited by
Cheryl Hayes. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987,
Vol.II.
Pirog-Good, M. A., "Child Support Compliance Among Young Fathers:
Preliminary Evidence from the Teen Alternative Parenting Program,"
chapter in Lerman and Ooms, Eds. Young Unwed Fathers: Policy
Dilemmas and Options, Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
forthcoming.
Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) The Young Unwed Fathers
Demonstration Project, a status report.
October 1990. Available from Public/Private Ventures, 399 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
Roberts, P. Turning Promises into Realities: A Guide to
Implementing the Child Support Provisions of the Family Support Act
of 1988. 1989. Available from Center for Law and Social Policy,
1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 350, Washington, D.C. 20036.
Sander, J.,** The Teen Father Collaboration: A National Research
and Demonstration Project.. Paper prepared for conference held at
Catholic University in October 1986 and sponsored by ASPE/DHHS.
Available from Project SHARE, c/o Family Support Administration,
DHHS
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. House of
Representatives, U.S. Children and Their Families: Current
Conditions and Recent Trends, 1989. A Report prepared by Child
Trends Inc.together with additional views. 101st Congress.
September 1989. Washington D.C.: US. Government Printing Office,
1989.
Shostak, A. "Unwed Fathers' Role in the Abortion Decision" chapter
in Young Unwed Fathers: Policy Dilemmas and Options edited by
Robert Lerman and Theodora Ooms, Philadelphia: Temple Univeristy
Press, forthcoming.
Shostak, A.B., McLouth, G., Seng, L. Men and Abortion: Lessons,
Losses and Love, New York.: Praeger, 1984.
Smollar , J. and Ooms, T. Young Unwed Fathers: Research Review,
Policy Dilemmas and Options. Summary Report of a conference held at
Catholic University in October 1986 sponsored by ASPE/DHHS. 1988.
Available from Project SHARE, c/o Family Support
Administration,DHHS. ....
Sonenstein, F.L. and Calhoun, C. The Survey of Absent Parents:
Pilot Results. July 1988. Report submitted by the Urban Institute
to Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
DHHS.
Sonenstein, F.L., Holcomb, P.A., Seefeldt, K., Paternity Practices
at the Local Level: A Preliminary View from a National Survey.
Paper prepared for the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management Twelfth Annual Research Conference, October 1990.
Available from the authors, Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW.
Washington D.C. 20037.
Sullivan, M. The Male Role in Teenage Pregnancy and Parenting: New
Directions for Public Policy. Report prepared by the Vera
Institute of Justice Inc. N.Y. for, and available from, the Ford
Foundation, 320 East 43rd Street, New York, N. Y. 10017.
Sullivan, M.L., ** Ethnographic Research on Young Fathers and
Parenting: Implications for Public Policy. Paper prepared for
conference held at Catholic University in October, 1986 sponsored
by ASPE/DHHS. Available from Project SHARE...
Wattenberg, E. " Paternity Actions and Young Fatherhood: Issue for
Programs and Policy," chapter in Young Unwed Fathers: Policy
Dilemmas and Options edited by Robert Lerman and Theodora Ooms.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, forthcoming.
Wattenberg, E. "Establishing Paternity for Nonmarital Children," in
Public Welfare, Summer 1987, pp.9-48.
Wattenberg, E., Brewer, R., Resnik, M. Paternity Decisions of Young
Unwed Parents. Final research report to be submitted to the Ford
Foundation in early 1991.
** Revised versions of these papers are included in the
forthcoming volume edited by Lerman and Ooms, Young Unwed Fathers:
Policy Dilemmas and Options to be published by Temple University
Press.
Prepared by Theodora Ooms (11/90 draft.)
_________________________________________________________________
KEYWORDS::FAMILY IMPACT SEMINAR FATHERS
AVAILABILITY::
For more information concerning CYFERNET please contact the Youth
Development Information Center at the National Agricultural Library
at (301) 504-6400 or [email protected].
____________________________________________________
End of Part 2 of 2 Part
.
|
| 165.8 | 1990 Studies About Grandparents & Grandchildren | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:49 | 240 |
|
1990 Studies About Grandparents & Grandchildren
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
240 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: 612/625-1915
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
=================================================================
Extension Home Economics
S P E C I A L I S T R E S E A R C H R E P O R T
Minnesota Extension Service
=================================================================
April 1990
Editor: Susan S. Meyers, Extension Family Sociologist
RECENT STUDIES ABOUT GRANDPARENTS AND GRANDCHILDREN
With increased longevity, it is apparent that the role of
grandparents has been changing. The relationship with their
grandchildren extends into young adulthood, sometimes with very
positive results. In addition, the increase in the number of
blended families has created a new position of step-grandparent,
and a whole set of new expectations and roles incumbent upon the
relationship. The purpose of this review is to summarize what has
been gleaned through recent studies.
Before the increase in longevity among older adults, it was
somewhat unusual for college age students to have a living
grandparent. The image of grandparents being very old, is no
longer the case. Grandparents can be from late 20's to over 100
years of age, and many remain in the work force through their 5th
decade.
Some adults become grandparents at very early ages (late 20's to
30's)because of babies born to very young mothers. Since a high
portion of these grandmothers became mothers themselves at very
young ages, the likelihood is high for 4-5-6 generations living in
these families. At the other end of the demographic picture, a
number of older adults are in their 50's and 60's still waiting to
become grandparents. They have children who are delaying
parenthood until their late 30's or beyond, or may never have
children. Since a number of those potential grandparents
did not have their children until later in their lives, there may
be a number of families who will never have 4 generations.
Therefore, to look at grandparenthood, one needs to recognize the
tremendous variety of situations occurring in the 1990's, and
recognize that individual variation will be great.
Gunhild Hagestad (1) noted that "A growing number of families now
have four or more generations....interact in a complex set of
family roles and relationships....in a four-generation family,
there are three tiers of parent-child connections; two sets of
grandparent-grandchild relationships, and two generations of people
who are both parents and children. Older members of such families
typically have steady contact with siblings, children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Most of these ties endure
for decades....Grandparents and grandchildren will have
relationships which last two or more decades."(p. 419)
There are different expectations of grandparents as well. Most
will be through with active parenting prior to becoming
grandparents, and therefore can focus more on providing the link
between the generations and become stabilizing forces for adult
children. When grandchildren are young, the grandparents are
likely to be employed, but as grandchildren become young adults,
the grandparents are more likely to be retired, to be widowed, and
may have more time to devote to family linkages.
How do grandparents support their families? It appears that
grandparents influence families through their emotional and
attitudinal (though not necessarily physical) presence (2). The
indirect influences on adult children (and therefore grandchildren)
include: emotional and material assistance; child-rearing controls;
and role models. The direct influences on grandchildren can be:
cognitive and social stimulation; direct support; observational
models for the child; and provision of opportunities for active
participation.
Increasingly grandparents influence grandchildren through serving
as caregivers or surrogate parents, as noted in Older Minnesotans.
Nonemployed and/or minority grandparents are more likely to have a
direct caregiving role with grandchildren. Although most
grandparents do not want this responsibility, when necessity
demands help, many support their children/grandchildren. Some
researchers refer to the support in emergency as "important
backstage figures," ready to assist as the situation requires
attention. The involvement of grandparents in the lives of
grandchildren is influenced most by the geographic proximity.
Grandparents are more involved with families when parents are
divorced. When daughters divorce, grandparents are more likely to
maintain or even enhance their contact with grandchildren. The
reverse is true when sons divorce, mainly because of contemporary
custody practices.
Related to divorce is the potential impact of step-grandparents and
step-grandchildren. Although the relationships appear to be less
strong than those of grandparents and grandchildren, many do desire
more frequent contact between these new positions. More
understanding of the dynamics of step-grandparents and
step-grandchildren will result as more studies are completed on
these roles and relationships.
Maternal grandparents often become involved as surrogate parents to
the offspring of their teenage children. Many are called upon to
provide all sorts of practical help, and some may resent the
grandparent role when they are caring for their own young children
at the same time.
Beneficial influences of grandparents on children's development
appears to be optimal when there is neither too little nor too much
contact. For instance, parental acceptance of children was higher
and children tended to be more self-reliant in homes where mothers
received child care aid from fathers or grandparents. In a
longitudinal study, at-risk infants and children from households
where mothers had the help of other adults (possibly grandparents)
coped better and scored higher on cognitive tests than children
whose mothers did not have adult support (3)(4). Other researchers
noted that children in black households headed by a mother and
grandmother did as well on assessments of psychological well-being
and social adaptability as children from homes with a mother and
father and considerably better than children from single-parent
homes(5).
Several recent studies have looked at college age students and the
patterns of relationships with their grandparents( 6). These
students had from 8 (or more) grandparents (2%) to 4 biological
grandparents (14%) to no living grandparents (8%). For students
with living grandparents, 45% lived in the same town with at least
one grandparent, and another 21% within 50 miles of a grandparent.
These students tended to feel closer to their mother's parents than
to their father's parents; and closer to grandmothers than to
grandfathers. As expected, more grandmothers were alive than
grandfathers. Half the students stated that it was very important
to their parents for them to have a close relationship with their
grandparents. The students perceived the roles of grandparents
most strongly in the areas of loving, helping and comforting; role
models; sharing family history; important in lives of young people;
and with whom they have fun. They indicated that grandchildren
should express love and provide help to grandparents; and that they
are part of their grandparents' sense of the future. The students
differed from those 10 years earlier because they did not expect
grandparents to spoil grandchildren nor believed that grandparents
prefer the company of their own age peers. Today's students are
more inclined to expect grandparents to be liaisons between
them and parents; to be somebody to turn to for personal advice; to
understand them when nobody else does; to aid in their financial
support; to act as a role model; or to be one whose occupation they
might choose to imitate. It appears that these students expected
their own role to complement their view of grandparenthood. These
students noted that grandparents are frequently a stabilizing and
buffering influence of family dissolution and reformation.
Step-grandparents and step-grandchildren
With increased divorce and remarriage, researchers are beginning to
study the impact of these family changes on the step-grandparents.
One researcher (7) looked at grandmothers in families following the
separation or divorce of their child. The emphasis was on
grandmothers (because of their kinkeeping role in the family), and
on grandchildren 12 years of age and younger (because of the
likelihood that pre- adolescent children were especially vulnerable
to the effects of their parents' separation or divorce). There was
an increase in the frequency of face-to-face contacts, telephone
calls, and letters between the grandmothers and grandchild
following the disruption of an adult child's marriage. This was
more true when the grandmother's child had custody and when
grandmothers were married.
Grandmothers babysat, taught family history and tradition and
provided advice on personal problems significantly more often after
the breakdown of their child's marriage. Those who lived nearby
may have observed the deterioration of the marriage and provided
increased support prior to the breakup of the marriage. The
grandmother of the non-custodial family increased visits with the
grandchild more than before the breakdown of their child's
marriage, even though most of the contact was with the custodial
family. Perhaps most noteworthy is the amount of personal advice
given to grandchildren by grandmothers. Perhaps the divorcing
parents, emotionally distraught, are unable to talk to their
children about the children's apprehension surrounding the
breakdown of their parents' marriage. Grandmothers may provide
this support to their grandchildren.
A study in North Dakota (8) attempted to identify the relationships
between the college students and their grandparent or
step-grandparent. These students had significantly more contact
with grandparents than with step-grandparents. They noted that the
contact with step-grandparents was less than desired (as contrasted
with grandparents). Even when the step-grandparents were acquired
in earlier life, the relationships were not rated as positively as
those with grandparents. The authors concluded that the
step-grandparent tie may be viewed as less important by the rest of
the family and less emphasis is placed on developing the
relationship. There are few clear guidelines on how to
be a grandparent; the role of step-grandparent is even more
ambiguous.
In the future, clear expectations about the roles of
step-grandparents and step-grandchildren combined with greater
clarity about grandparent- grandchild relations may enhance
potential benefits from these relationships.
Cited References:
1. G.O. Hagestad, Able elderly in the family context: changes,
chances, and challenges, The Gerontologist, Vol. 27, No. 4,
1987.
2. V. Bengtson, Diversity and symbolism in grandparental roles,
in V.L. Bengtson and J.F. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood,
Beverly Hills, Sage, 1985.
3. T.E. Denham & C.W. Smith, The influence of grandparents on
grandchildren: A review of the literature and resources,
Family Relations, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1989.
4. E.E. Werner & R.S. Smith, Vulnerable but invincible: A
longitudinal study of resilient children and youth, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1982.
5. A.J. Cherlin & F.F. Furstenberg, The new American grandparent:
A place in the family, a life apart, New York: Basic Books,
1986.
6. G. E. Kennedy, College students' expectations of grandparent
and grandchild role behaviors, The Gerontologist, Vol. 30, No.
1, 1990.
7. J.W. Gladstone, Perceived changes in grandmother-grandchild
relations following a child's separation or divorce, The
Gerontologist, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1988.
8. G.F. Sanders & D.W. Trygstad, Stepgrandparents and
grandparents: The view from young adults, Family Relations,
Vol. 38, No. 1, 1989.
.
|
| 165.9 | The Father and the Masculine Life Cycle | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:50 | 628 |
|
The Father and the Masculine Life Cycle
by David Gutmann
November 1991
An Institute for American Values Working Paper
for the Symposium on Fatherhood in America
Publication No.: W.P. 13
Children Youth and Family Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this document
for noncommercial purposes provided that the author and CYFCEC receive
acknowledgment and this notice is included. Phone (612) 626-1212
EMAIL: [email protected]
The Human Father and the Masculine Life Cycle
Introduction: An Approach to the Natural History of Fatherhood
The main argument of this paper is that fathers are not only
important in the early years of a man's life; rather, fathers are
necessary to men's well-being and civility at all major transition
points across the whole masculine life-cycle. The versions of the
father vary, depending on the season of life. Thus, the phrasings
of paternity vary from the biological father in childhood to the
collective fathers, the "city fathers," in young manhood, and the
fathers of all creation, the immortal gods, in old age. As life goes
on, the fathers become more abstract and more remote; but whatever
their nature, all of these fathers play a common role: they
kindle in males the psychic strength that they need to
accomplish vital transitions, across the life span.
This thesis is based on evidence from developmental psychology,
from psychoanalysis, and from cultural anthropology, including
my own comparative field work among Amerindian, Mayan, and
Middle-Eastern groups (Gutmann, 1987). I have relied on special
perspectives to highlight the great regularities around fatherhood
that are latent in such data. In particular, I use the
psychoanalytic perspective on human development; I will start this
essay by discriminating that perspective from other viewpoints and by
justifying its use in this case.
Three Approaches to Understanding Fatherhood
The great anthropologist Ralph Linton once remarked (194S),
"In some ways, each man is like all other men; in some ways, each
man is like some other men; and in some ways, each man is like
no other men." (Nowadays, Linton's language has a sexist ring,
but that's how the man said it.) Linton was referring to the major
orders of human experience. His first level -- each man like all
men -- refers to our common, universal ways of underwriting
individual and species survival. Linton's second level -- each man
like some others -- refers to the fact that we share common
language, common culture, and common ways of achieving language and
culture with a few socially selected members of our species. This
level refers also to the ways in which we act so as to preserve society
and to maintain ourselves as social beings in the eyes of our fellows.
Linton's Level Three -- each man like no others -- refers to the
ways in which we experience ourselves and maintain ourselves as
unique and special, different even from those with whom we share a
common culture.
For reasons that I hope to make clear, the father's most
crucial functions must be studied via the methods and instruments
that are fitted to the universals, to Level One. However, Level
One perspectives are currently out of fashion: they remind us
of forces that operate beyond conscious control, even as they
influence the direction and content of awareness and conscious
thinking. The tectonic forces that drive Level One experience
signal us that -- as Bruno Bettelheim once said -- "We are not the
masters even in our own mental house." To consider Level One
phenomena is to receive a narcissistic wound; and so in our
narcissistic age these levels of experience are avoided and left out of
our usually orthodox behavioral science. Instead, the father's role is
critiqued from the discipline and methods of Level Two, which is
sociology and cultural anthropology, or from the ideology
(actually, the politically correct theology) of Level Three, which is
Humanistic Psychology. According to the sociologists of the family,
fathers who insist on playing a special, authoritative role,
distinct from mothers, are not serving their children, they are
oppressing their women. And humanistic psychologists also deplore
the authoritative father: he is, they fear, expressing masculine
needs to be dominant and "phallocentric" at the expense of his
wife's individuality and "self actualization."
Thus, on the best campuses (and especially the best)
biological paternity -- the special male role in procreation -- has
been split off in theory from the social condition of fatherhood.
Biological paternity is admittedly a fact of nature; but fatherhood, as
a special condition with its own scope, powers, and responsibilities,
is regarded by mainstream social scientists as a purely social
invention: a ploy of corrupt patriarchy, a violation of nature.
And now we find that too many men, happy to be let off the hook,
have heard the liberating message from academia: they are helping to
conceive more babies and more candidates for abortion than ever before,
but they are too often refusing to be trustworthy, strong, and
responsible fathers. According to the new dispensation, this liberation
of men from bondage to the patriarchal ideal should lead to the
liberation of women. It has not: for as men defect from traditional
versions of fatherhood, they also defect from the tested arrangements
of marriage -- and from marriage per se. As a consequence, too
many women are left alone with the kids in single-parent families.
Women are more oppressed than ever: the patriarch has gone, but
so are the special rations of security and companionship that he
provided. Clearly then, the sociological and humanistic revisions of
fatherhood are not working. Instead, it seems that the traditional
phrasings of fatherhood were more than expressions of oppressive male
politics; it appears that they too were an extension rather than
a refutation of the same kinds of natural law that also governed
biological paternity.
Clearly, if we are going to develop some real answers, beyond
political correctitude, to the important questions -- what is the
father's special contribution to parenting; and what do men get out of
fathers? -- we will have to forage through the data of Level One, the
grammar of human universals.
Fatherhood: Closeness through Distance
Species Survival -- the major issue of the first level -- is
underwritten by adequate patenting, by the kind of parenting that
raises children to be good parents in their turn, down the generations.
Erik Erikson once remarked that the long dependency of the human child
is the crucial agenda for human development at all ages. The unique
features of human parenthood, including the distinctive features of
patemal and matemal roles, are also shaped by that same great constant
-- the unique vulnerability of our children. A guiding idea of
this paper is that the forms of paternity and maternity are not
expressions of power politics between the sexes but are evolved
adaptations to the special requirements of the weak and needy human
child. Appropriately then, before we address the matter of
fatherhood, we should first address its larger context: the special
needs, universal across our species, of our at-risk offspring.
Different societies do aim at their own distinctive child
rearing goals, but they nevertheless maintain common understandings
about the basic needs that must be addressed by any child-care
regime. Thus, if it is to thrive by any reasonable criteria, the
vulnerable human child must be assured of two kinds of parental
nurturance: it must be given some assurance of physical security and
also of emotional security. There is also a general recognition,
across our species, that the same parent cannot adequately provide both
kinds of security. The child's physical security ultimately depends on
activities carried out far from home: warfare, hunting (including the
modern version of the hunt, for business and clients), and the
cultivation of distant tillage. Far from home on their lawful
occasions, fathers cannot be reliable sources of emotional nurture.
Men are generally assigned the task of providing physical security
on the perimeter, not because they are more privileged, but because
they are more expendable. Thus, in the hard calculus of species
survival, there is typically an oversupply of males, in that one
man can inseminate many females, but women, on the average, can
gestate only one child about every two years during their
relatively brief period of fertility. The surplus males, those over the
number required to maintain viable population levels, can be
assigned to the dangerous, high-casualty "perimeter" tasks on
which physical security and survival are based. "When it comes
to slaughter, you do not send your daughter" is one of our most
predictable human rules; and there are unassailably good reasons
for it. By the same token, the sex on whom the population
level ultimately depends is less expendable; thus, women are
generally assigned to secure areas, there to supply the formative
experiences that give rise to emotional security in children.
George Murdoch's (1935) tables, based on ethnographic data from
224 subsistence-level societies, indicate that any productive or
military activity requiring a protracted absence from the home --
hunting, trapping, herding, deep-sea fishing, offensive and defensive
warfare -- is performed almost exclusively by males. Activities
carried out closer to home -- dairy farming, erecting and
dismantling shelters, harvesting, tending kitchen gardens and fowl
-- are sometimes exclusive to men, more often exclusive to
women, but are in most instances carried out by both sexes. However,
hearthside activities, particularly those having to do with preserving
and preparing food, are almost exclusively the province of women.
These Murdoch findings cannot be adequately interpreted by
Level Two thinkers; a work site by gender distribution that is so
predictable, across so many different kinds of societies, cannot be
explained by sociology alone. These findings can only point to a
species regularity, an expression of our bio-psychological nature, and
not to some pan-social masculine conspiracy to keep women in their
place. Incontestably, men are creatures of the perimeter; and in the
remainder of this paper we will consider the ways in which this and
other central dimensions of masculinity play out in the versions of
fatherhood that are encountered and enacted across the lifecycle of men.
This special role of the father, to be close from a distance,
reveals itself soon after the infant's birth. Thus, basing her
argument on cross-cultural research, Niles Newton (1973) asserts
that mothers are central in the experience of the infant -- whether
a boy or a girl -- and that fathers play an auxiliary,
supportive post-natal function. Newton argues that coitus, birth, and
lactation -- the three major expressions of female sexuality -- are
also strikingly vulnerable, prone to shut down in the face of
outer threat. In order to reach their reproductive goal, these
maternal activities all require external buffering and protection,
most often provided by men. Newton cites ethnographic
descriptions of young mothers in South Africa, the Middle East
and China, all pointing to a standard pattern of matemal
engrossment with the infant, in an intense bond that can persist
through the first years of the child's life. At all these sites,
the infant sleeps next to the mother, is nursed at the first sign of
restlessness- and nursing takes precedence over any potentially
competing activity. The mother can devote herself almost
exclusively to nurturing the child because she herself is being
nurtured, "mothered" by her husband. The father's task is to
maintain a protected zone, one in which his gratified and
secure spouse can bring about the mother-child enmeshment that
is so necessary to the infant's early emotional development.
The father may not be on the physical periphery of his
community, but he is, at this point, on the emotional periphery of
his family, relatively excluded from the intense mother-infant link. At
this early but crucial period, the father connects to the mother-
infant dyad through intermediaries: he tends to identify,
vicariously, with the mothering that his child receives from his wife --
and with the "mothering" that his wife receives from him.
Achieving Distance via the Father
At the outset of life, this mother-child merger -- a continuation
in psychological terms of the intrauterine umbilical link -- is
necessary for the infant's future psyche-social development, which
must be away from the mother. Assured of a stable home base, the infant
can begin to explore its world and to provoke change in it. Thus,
human development proceeds by paradox, in a dialectical fashion:
the almost exclusive mother-child bonding that is so crucial in the
first year of life prepares for its own negation, in the period of
early autonomy, during which the child practices psychological and
physical separation from the mother. During this pivotal exploratory
period, the linear arrangement of the family -- father tends the
mother, mother tends kids -- begins to break down and the
father, because he is different from the mother, because he
betokens the desired distance from Mom, and because in his own way
he also nurtures, becomes a psychological "object," a presence in
the emotional life of the separating child. The linear arrangement
gives way to the family triangle: daughters fall in love with their
daddies; and sons -- even while they revere him -- take the father
as a kind of rival for the mother's affection. In either case,
in step with the child's development, the father's role in the family
has taken on a new and special meaning: as an alternate, less
proximal figure of strength and provision, one who matches the child's
growing need for distance, he becomes a magnet, a way station on the
child's road outward to the world, and away from an unboundaried union
with the mother. The father is still majorly responsible for providing
physical security, but at this point -- even under conditions of
affluence and assured supplies -- he can become a vital agent in
the child's emotional life. If the father can maintain a vivid and
distinctive presence, then at this time of early mother-child
separation, he will support the maturation of daughters as well as
sons.
But on the whole, sons have a more pressing need to separate
psychologically from the mother. There are good reasons for this
gender difference: if the species is to continue, daughters are much
more likely than sons to follow -- at least for some significant
period -- the mother's domestic and biological destiny; the daughter
can continue to know herself as the mother's daughter without
significantly prejudicing her future adult role, as a mother in her own
right. But sons are pointed towards a different fate, towards a life on
some version of the perimeter, beyond the edge of the mother's domestic
world. From here on, we will concentrate on the male career, and on how
he gets there.
Like daughters, boys start out as creatures of the domestic world,
as sons of their mothers; but early on, they must diminish their ties
to her and prepare for the extra-domestic paternal role, in large part
among men. At some point, the son has to redefine himself, from being
the son of his mother to being the son of his father. This
crucial baptism can only come about if the father is strong in his own
right, and different from the mother. Because he is strong, because
he has exclusive sexual rights with the mother, because he is invested
in the son, then he is worthy of the son's love, but also of his envy.
Eventually, realizing that he cannot defeat the father and that it is
too dangerous to even try, the son will abandon the Oedipal rivalry,
and will attempt instead to acquire the father's envied strength in more
realistic ways: through identification, imitation, and apprenticeship,
rather than by conquest. He comes to terms with the paradox of male
power: by submitting to the father's discipline and authority, the son
can eventually inherit his power. Given some assurance, via his internal
"father," the super ego, that he is in touch with the father's powers,
the son begins to feel the glow of strength and resource in himself
Given this assurance, that he could survive -- psychologically, at least
-- on his own, the son can begin to accomplish the necessary detachment
from the mother: he will still love and respect her; but he will no
longer desperately need her.
Summing up, in order to separate from the mother, in order to
eventually be a provider to others, the son needs a father whose
strengths distinguish him from the mother's, and in spheres that are
socially separate, and often physically distant, from the mother's
domain.
A recent study by Gutmann and Huyck (1991) based on in-depth data
from older, stable families in a Chicago suburb, supports the argument:
fathers who are absent in the emotional sense, fathers who are
"maternal" rather than distinctively paternal, fathers who are the
mother's androgynous twin cannot foster the boy's developmental
transition from being mother's son to being father's son. Sons of
physically or psychologically absent fathers do separate from the mother
in the physical and social sense: they leave home, they find girlfriends
or wives; but because they have not separated in the psychological
sense, they bring the maternal transference with them into the marriage,
and turn their spouse into another "mom." This special arrangement can
stabilize these dependent men, but only if the wife cooperates and only
as long as the supply of maternal surrogates lasts. But even crisis, in
the form of aggravated adolescent rebellion. Particularly in traditional
societies, the whole age-grade of male elders is mobilized to
back up the father's threatened authority, to help the boy complete
the migration away from the mother, and to turn him back towards the
perimeter and towards the ways of men. The biological father helps the
son achieve the first vital separation, from the mother; the collective
fathers are required to bring about the second great separation: from
the family as a whole and even from the physical precincts of the home
community.
Now, the pubertal son deals not only with his own father but with
his father's colleagues, the elders and fathers of his community --
and ultimately, through them, with the ancestral fathers of his people.
The collective fathers arrange an ordeal, a rite de passage, through
which the pubertal son is consecrated to these various forms of
paternity. The rite de passage takes as many forms as there are distinct
cultures; it can range from penile subincision with cowry shells as
practiced by Papuan natives, to the Bar Mitzvah ceremonial of Orthodox
Jews. But in all cases, the young candidates are exposed to a trial,
usually under the attentive, critical gaze of the assembled senior men,
who watch for signs of weakness. Whiting and Child (1953) found that the
severity of the ordeal varied, across cultures, with the length of the
breast-feeding period. Because the ritual is a passage away from the
mother, and since late weaning implies a strong maternal bond, then a
stringent ordeal is required to break it. By the same token, if the boy
is too visibly frightened or tearful, then he has not passed the test:
he has cried for his mother, he still belongs to her world, and he has
not been reborn -- as a father's son and junior colleague -- into the
company of men. But if the lad endures with some grace and fortitude,
then he has begun to make it as a man: he is one of the "twice born,"
adopted as a son of the collective
fathers and as an age-grade brother of the initiates who have endured
with him. Success in the passage ritual demonstrates that the young man
has the fortitude necessary for risky assignments beyond the boundaries
of the community. But besides testing his fitness, the rite de passage
provides the initiate with "brothers": the age class of young men who
are bonded to him through the ritual, and who represent the piece of
the community that will go with him on his journeys beyond its borders.
But even more important, the ritual begins the attachment to some
totemic sponsor, whose-supernatural powers -- his "medicine" or his mana
-- will also provide the initiate with luck and protection on the road.
In other words, the rite de passage extends the idea of paternity beyond
the biological father, into the collectivity of community elders, and
finally beyond them to the ultimate fathers -- the spiritualized
ancestors and the mythic fathers of the people and their world.
Typically, a culture is rooted in an origin myth: a story of how
the People, at a time of trial and supreme danger were sponsored,
rescued, and rendered special by the intervention of unordinary --
usually supernatural -- beings. The typical puberty ritual
recapitulates this drama: like his people in the origin myth, the
candidate is also in a liminal condition, a state of emergency, and if
he survives the ordeal, it is because he too -- like his folk in the
founding myth -- has found favor with a totemic sponsor. As a young
child, he became for a time the son of his natural father; now, as a
youth, he becomes -- via the ritual -- the protege of some favoring
deity. The earlier, post-Oedipal alliance with the biological father
endowed the son with some sense of inner resource, allowing him to
separate from the protective mother. This later affiliation with the
spiritual fathers gives the son the courage that he needs to separate,
physically, from the community as a whole: from the nurturing mothers
again, from the biological fathers, and from the community foster
fathers, as well. More importantly, the cosmic connection refreshes the
candidate's sense of inner resource -- the conviction of having captured
some substance of the totemic fathers -- that will help him to become,
with confidence, a father in his own right. Knowing that he can leave
the home and the community, knowing that he can live off his own psychic
substance, and even be a source of security for others, the son can look
towards mating, marriage, and fatherhood. Like his father before him,
he can court a woman, he can attempt the frightening but exciting voyage
into her body, and -- secure in his manhood -- he can return to the
domestic world, the world of women, of the mothers, not as a needy
child, but as a mate and as a providing father.
Erik Erikson once remarked that deprivation per se is not
psychologically destructive; it is only deprivation without meaning,
without redeeming significance, that is psychologically destructive.
Human cultures, whatever particular forms they might take, have a great
and universal function: to endow the routine sacrifices of human
parenthood with high significance and dignity. Without culture -- as we
can see all around us -- children are at risk, and too often from their
own resentful parents. But when the young man has been linked -- through
his father and through the rituals managed by the fathers -- to some
part of the myth on which his culture is founded, then he too can become
an adequate father. Rather than seeming to limit his freedoms, the
state of fatherhood will grant him a special dignity, an identity,
precisely because of the significant sacrifices that this condition
demands.
The World without Fathers
I have briefly outlined the developmental stages and the universal
practices whereby biological, social, and totemic fathers turn sons in
their turn into fathers. But what happens when -- as in our American
case -- this transmission belt of the father's substance into the sons
breaks down?
There appear to be four major outcomes; and minor qualifications
aside, none of them are good. Thus, poorly fathered sons are less
likely to separate from their mothers; as a consequence, fearing
entrapment, young men become so vulnerable to women that they end by
avoiding them, brutalizing them, or both. Inadequately fathered young
men inseminate women but avoid fatherhood. Lacking a good superego,
these men find strength not in the law but in criminality, and much of
their violence is pointed at women. Father's sons may patronize women,
but they also protect them; it is the "Mama's boys" who are most likely
to prove their manhood -- as in the "fatherless" inner city -- by
savaging women. They violate those who represent, outwardly, the
shameful, feminine part of themselves.
Finally, in ever increasing numbers, young men stay home with
their mothers, but they do not -- by becoming fathers in their own
right -- help daughters in their turn to become mothers.
The deconstruction of fatherhood in our own society can lead to
abortive, often destructive attempts to achieve separation from the
mother and to gain -- without fathers -- the sense of inner resource
usually provided by adequate sires. Thus, when sons cannot achieve
psychological distance from the mother, they will either cling to her
and her surrogates or they will in compensation amplify, often
violently, their physical and social distance from her. They may become
vagrants and swell the ranks of the homeless; through delinquency, they
may shock and provoke the mother to the point where she drives them
out of the home; or they might find impersonal replacements for the
mothers in the form of addicting substances. Booze and drugs can
provide, at least temporarily, the sense of inner resource, of "high,"
that makes it possible for sons -- at least temporarily -- to tolerate
the sense of separation from the mother. When there is no strong father
to aid the son in this developmental task, then he will too often turn
to the kinds of "righteous" substances which -- temporarily at least --
fill him with the sense of strength and goodness. In our addictive
society, drugs substitute for fathers to bring about token separations
from the mother.
Men who have not separated psychologically from their mothers find
it hard to enter into closeness with women. Such intimacy always
carries the risk of losing the intimate other, the unique other who
cannot be replaced. Better to look for good feelings in impersonal
substances -- booze and drugs -- that cannot be used up, that can
always be replaced. Heavy drinkers "kill the bottle" and call the
emptied flask a "dead soldier," but -- unlike the mother, unlike the
girl friend -- the bottle will never really leave or die; the bottle
always comes back, gleaming in its unchanging regimental colors, ready
to serve and die again. It is not the bottle or the syringe that finally
dies, but the user.
Multitudes of young men have recently discovered another, more
drastic means for achieving social distance from their mothers, while
at the same time avoiding fatherhood: the homosexual community. Again,
like liquor bottles or drug vials, homosexual sex tends to be impersonal
and its participants tend to be replaceable to each other. In the gay
community, as with other centers of addiction, one can find pleasure
without risking intimacy and the possibility of irreplaceable loss. At
the same time, distance has been gained from the mothers: the homosexual
world is a camp of men that excludes -- even mocks and caricatures --
the "breeders," the dangerous mothers.
Finally, in the absence of reliable fathers and elders, young men
try to create their own puberty rituals and administer to each other
their own initiations. In the parental society, the tests of manhood are
administered by the male elders; and are in the service of lawfulness,
order, and male productivity. But when the tests are conducted by
unsupervised gangs of adolescent males, the candidates must prove
courage, usually through their defiance of the law; their passage is not
into responsible manhood but too often into the world of the criminal.
Instead of curbing anti-social rebellion, the puberty rites of teen-age
gangs too often augment it.
The Ultimate Fathers and the Final Passage
We have seen that the biological father sponsors the separation
from the mother, within the family. Later, teachers and mentors sponsor
some separation from the family as a whole, though still within the
ambit of the larger community. The massed social
fathers underwrite the physical separations from the familiar community
-- the separations that are essential to the male role on some vital
perimeter.
Finally, fatherly beings, spiritual in nature, stationed in their
own realm beyond the pragmatic community, are necessary to endorse
the final passage of the male lifecycle: from vigorous manhood to
old age, and finally from life into the farthest country of death.
In the traditional community, senior post-parental men can achieve
great status, not because of their physical strength and ferocity but,
paradoxically, because of their relative mildness. Typically, they ,
rather than young men, are interlocutors between the community and
its gods. If your community is in trouble, you do not send young
Prometheus to ask for God's mercy. He will steal God's fire and make
matters worse; but old men, instead of offending, will humbly pray
for divine grace and -- as in the founding myth -- the weak elders
become recipients and vessels of the healing powers.
There exists, then, a generational rule of some universality
that compensates the traditional aged for their losses of physical
power, by the acquisition of supematural power. Young men kill with
edged weapons, but older men can kill with a curse. Thus
Lucien Levy-Bruhl (1928) observed that in the preliterate folk society
the old man is "encircled by a kind of mystic halo," an essence
so pervasive that his body parts and even his excrement can
become the residence of tabu power. The ethnogerontologist
Simmons (1945) provides this observation:
It was not strength or brawn alone that won in battle or staved
off bad luck or healed the dreaded disease; it was a special power,
mysterious and most potent in the hands of old men and old women
who have survived all these dangers ... Not all magicians were
old, but superannuation and the supernatural were very commonly and
closely linked.
In illustration, Simmons reports many examples of the older
man's awesome tabu powers, the most striking coming from the Hottentot
of Africa, where the old men initiate young men, who have passed
their early life among women, into manhood. The climax of the
rite comes when the old man urinates on the candidate, who receives the
urine with joy, rubbing it vigorously into his skin. His old sponsor
then tells the candidate that he will increase and multiply and that
his beard will soon grow. Clearly, in this case, even the urine of
the old man has heroic power, the mana of the patriarchal phallus
through which it passed. In the most concrete sense, it "marinates"
the young man with the powers of the old man, thus bringing the lad
in his turn to manhood. Here we see, unequivocally, the strong
face of aging, the face that is hidden from us in our own secular,
contra-parental, contragerontic society.
In sum, whether by virtue of their special weakness or their
special strength, traditional elders are elected. While young men
live on the physical perimeter of the community, to contain and
capture the forces of ordinary nature, the old men retreat
physically to the interior, domestic zone. But once having established
a secure home base, they can again move out, not to the physical
borders, but to the spiritual perimeter of the community; there to
fend off the bad power and to harvest the good power of the
gods. As in most developmental sequences, the seeming withdrawal into
domesticity is a stage in the dialectic, the precondition for a
subsequent advance -- an imaginative leap outward, to the
supernaturals.
Thus, as men give up the ways of the warrior and their stations
on the community's perimeter, they move back toward the domestic
world, there to rekindle qualities of sensuality, emotionality, and
mildness repressed during their days of fighting and fathering. Rather
than restlessly seeking and provoking change on the perimeter, they
seek constancy of place, person, and nutriment at the protected center.
But often, as masters of ritual, the old fathers move out to the
spiritual perimeter, to confront the powerful and empowering
parental gods. Older men discover in the supernatural fathers the
strength that they no longer find within themselves; they use
prayer to beseech, for themselves and for the people, their fire
from the gods.
But when older men lose -- usually under conditions of
secularization and urbanization -- their cosmic connection, they also
lose the sense of an assured center, within themselves; and they fall
away from the high status of elder, down to their modern
condition: "the aged." Aging men, by contrast to elders, lack the
sense of connection to the totemic fathers; and without that inner
assurance, they cannot easily decouple from tokens of prestige and
vitality that originate outside of themselves, for example, in their
employment and social roles. Thus, they do not suffer illness -- the
loss of the body -- easily; and they do not easily retire from the
occasional powers and honors that come from gainful work. The late
life depressions that afflict many of our aged express,
symptomatically, their sense of post-retirement and post-potency
emptiness. These aged do not inspire or strengthen younger men; on
the contrary, they may frighten and even disgust them.
But the elders of traditional societies -- or of traditional sub-
cultures within our secular society -- because they are bridgeheads
between the community and its father-gods -- can give up the lesser
potencies of youth. They can even endure, with some grace and
courage, the final separation, from life. As they accomplish these final
transitions, senior men, elders, become the social "fathers" that young
men need as they face their own life tasks and their own entry into
fatherhood.
Bibliography
Gutmann, D. L, Reclaimed Powers. Towards a New Psychology of Men
and Women in Later Life (NY: Basic Books, 1987).
Gutmann, D. L., and M. H. Huyck, "Good outcomes and
pathological consequences of post-parental androgyny," unpublished
manuscript, Department of Psychiatry, Northwestern University
Medical School.
Kardiner, A., and R. Linton, The Psychological Frontiers of
Society (NY: Columbia
University Press, 1945).
Levy-Bruhl, L., The "Soul" of the Primitive, (London: Allen and Unwin,
1928).
Murdoch, G., "Comparative data on the division of labor by sex," Social
Forces, 15 (1935), pp. 551-553.
Newton, N., "Psycho-social aspects of the mother/father/child unit,"
paper presented at
meetings of the Swedish Nutrition Foundation, Upsala, 1973.
Simmons, L. W., The Role of the Aged in Primitive Society, (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1945).
Whiting, J. W., and I. Child, Child Training and Personality: A Cross-
Cultural Study, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953).
.
|
| 165.10 | The Good Family Man | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:51 | 1866 |
|
The Good Family Man
Fatherhood and the Pursuit of Happiness in America
November 1991
by David Blankenhom
An Institute for American Values Working Paper
for the Symposium on Fatherhood in America
Publication No.: WP. 12
Children Youth and Family Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this document
for noncommercial purposes provided that the author and CYFCEC receive
acknowledgment and this notice is included. Phone (612) 626-1212
EMAIL: [email protected]
The Fatherhood Script
Much more than motherhood, fatherhood is a cultural invention.
Its meaning for the individual man is shaped less by biology
than by a cultural script or story -- a societal code that
guides, and at times pressures, him into certain ways of
acting and of understanding himself as a man.1
Historically, the content of the script, the plot line, changes
over time. It also varies somewhat from society to society.
Indeed, these facts confirm that fatherhood is primarily
a cultural, rather than a biological, story. Yet the underlying
purpose of -this script is remarkably similar across history
and continents.
The deepest purpose of the script is to define socially
necessary activities for men. Margaret Mead observed that the
supreme test of any civilization is to establish productive
roles for men. More recently, conservatives such as James Q.
Wilson and liberals such as Myriam Miedzian both remind us
that poorly socialized males constitute the essential
source of violence and crime in all societies. Accordingly' in
Wilson's words, "human progress depends decisively on the
socialization of the male."2
In cultures across the world, the socialization of the male
hinges largely, if not entirely, upon shared norms of
fatherhood. In general terms, if we equate the essence of
the unsocialized man with violence, we can equate the essence
of the socialized man with being a good father. At the
very center of our most important cultural imperative,
therefore, we find the fatherhood script: the story that describes
what it ought to mean for a man to have a child.
Moreover, at the same time that the script displays a social
purpose -- to harness male behavior to collective needs -- it
also reflects an individual goal. In a word, that goal
is happiness. For as David Gilmore points out, the genius of
a well-functioning culture is its capacity to reconcile
individual happiness with collective well-being. By situating
individual lives within a social narrative, culture endows private
behavior with larger meaning. By linking the self to moral
purposes larger than the self, a well-functioning
culture tells us a story in which individual fulfillment
transcends selfishness and in which personal satisfaction
transcends narcissism. Our cultural script, therefore, is not
simply a set of imported moralisms, exterior to the
individual and designed only to compel self-sacrifice. It is
also a pathway -- indeed, it is our only pathway -- to what the
founders of the American experiment called "the pursuit of
happiness."
This essay is a criticism of today's fatherhood script in the
United States. Let me be blunt. My criticism is fundamental. I
believe that today's prevailing story of fatherhood,
particularly as told by opinion leaders and cultural elites,
amounts to a social and personal disaster. It is a story with
one-dimensional characters, an unbelievable plot, and an
unhappy ending. It reveals in our society both a failure of
collective memory and a collapse of moral imagination. In
short, today's dominant story of fatherhood undermines
families, neglects children, causes or aggravates many of our
society's most pressing social problems, and makes individual
adult happiness -- both male and female -- harder to achieve.
These are large claims. Before I seek to prove them, let me
illustrate my theme and conceptual framework, first with a
story, then with a metaphor.
The story is a true one. Some months ago, a group of fathers
were discussing their sons. These fathers are highly educated,
affluent, and professionally successful. Each seems
to love his son very much. The question arose: "What are we
teaching our sons about what it means to be a man?"
The answers varied, as might be expected. Several men cited
the value of honesty. Other values were also stressed.
Respect for others. Kindness. Generosity. Communication. Being
true to principles. Sensitivity to the needs of others.
Yet one thread unites all these answers. These men sought
to teach their sons about manhood through universal human
values. The very same values, they agreed, that they would
try to teach to daughters.
-An observer then challenged these answers, accusing the
men of ducking the question. The question is about
gender, about sexual embodiment. It is about the
difference between teaching a "child" and teaching a "boy." Yet
the fathers were generally unrepentant. For them, the
essence was human values, not some delineated ethic of
masculinity.
This idea is quite widespread, especially among elites. It is
summarized eloquently by Mark Gerzon in A Choice of
Heroes, in which he examines the "changing faces of
American manhood," or what he also terms "the emerging
masculinities" of our society. These ascendant norms, he
concludes, are united by "one striking similarity. The human
qualities they symbolize transcend sexual identity ... These
traits are based on values; they are not sexual, but ethical.
This is the ultimate difference. Unlike the old archetypes, which
were for men only, the emerging masculinities are not. They are,
in fact, emerging humanities.4
Gerzon celebrates this ideal. I do not. Much of my quarrel with
today's fatherhood script, therefore, is rooted precisely in my
quarrel with this trend. If fatherhood is a cultural ideal
worth defending at all, then the defense must recognize and
affirm sexual differences and gender complementarities, not
simply androgynous "humanities." Indeed, to deprive the
fatherhood script of all gender-specific content is not
simply to redefine masculinity. In some fundamental way, it is
to repudiate the existence of masculinity.
For the author of this essay -- indeed, for most people who
write about-the family -- the issues here strike close to home.
I am the father of a son. I want to teach my son how
to be a good person. But while that is necessary, it is not
sufficient. I also want to teach my son how to be a good
man and how to be a good father. But when I look
around me for help and reinforcement in that crucial task, I see
a culture that, at its best, communicates confusion, fear,
and anxiety on the entire subject of what it means for a
boy to become a man. At its worst, I see our culture as
actively hostile to this entire enterprise.
Here is the metaphor. Imagine the cultural story of fatherhood
as a book or a movie script. Three decades ago, the text
was quite long, like a Victorian novel. It had many
pages, chapters, and scenes. Each page contained vivid detail
and description. The text told a story -- a detailed,
specific story with a beginning, middle, and end. The
story had a moral. As a script, its supreme virtue was telling
the actors exactly what to do and why -- not just in
general, but line by line, scene after scene, until the story
ended.
Today, that book gathers dust, increasingly unread and
even forgotten. Few people would want to make that movie
anymore. (When anyone does, the film critics give it
terrible reviews.) Those old roles are widely considered to
be anachronistic: socially irrelevant and far too individually
confining to be of any current value. Though this view
is especially dominant among elites, most ordinary people
today would agree -- the author of this essay would agree
-- that there is much truth in this criticism of the old text.
Today, we have a new book, a new script. Its defining
style and characteristic is minimalism. It is a very short text
that is not divided into chapters or scenes. It resembles
a political pamphlet, or what movie people call a
"treatment." The language is suggestive, but there are very
few specifics. There are a couple of big ideas and a few
slogans, but little description and no detail. The moral
is unclear and is intended to be. On most pages,
there are no cues for the actors, who must simply
improvise as best they can. Moreover, this improvisational
imperative is presented to the actors as an inherent feature
of the new story and as something to be than for.
The result is not surprising. Almost no one can follow
this script. The actors simply do not know what to
do. They are bewildered. They wander around. They
are lost. Some argue with each other; many become
frustrated and angry. A growing number eventually
decide that the whole activity is pointless; they start
looking for something new. Many who are left wonder
if they, too, should simply quit. Without a story to
follow, without cues to guide them, they have little
choice but to fall back onto themselves -- only to
discover that, absent any larger story, there is not much
there to fall back on. They fall, therefore, into
increasing confusion and anxiety, into loneliness,
into simple narcissism, or into all of these.5
Increasingly, this is the story of fatherhood in our
time. It does not require special research to
discover or document this problem. It is evident
all around us. Indeed, I suspect that for most men
(and women) today, the sad results of this story
are plain and visible wherever they turn -- sketched, if
not in their own lives, then certainly in the lives of
many family members, friends, and neighbors.
The second core aspect of my quarrel with today's
fatherhood script, then, is based on my analysis of
culture. I look essentially to culture, rather than
politics or economics, to shape family roles and
influence family well-being. But in American culture
today, I observe a conspicuous failure to maintain
or establish successful norms of fatherhood.
Ultimately, of course, this is also the failure
of Margaret Mead's supreme cultural imperative: the challenge
of socializing men.
Finally, in a still larger sense, the failure of the
fatherhood script reflects nothing less than a culture
gone awry: a culture increasingly unable to
establish the boundaries, erect the signposts, and
fashion the stories that alone can harmonize
individual happiness with collective well-being. It is a
culture, in short, that increasingly fails to "enculture"
individual men and women, mothers and fathers.
In personal terms, the end result of this process, the final
residue from what David Gutmann calls "deculturation", is
narcissism: a me-first egotism that is hostile not only to any
societal goal or larger moral purpose, but also to any but the
most puerile understanding of personal happiness.6 In social
terms, the most important result of this phenomenon is male
violence, especially violence against women. Both personally
and socially, the largest result is our society's steady
fragmentation into atomized individuals, isolated from one another
and increasingly estranged from the aspirations and realities of
common membership in a family, a community, a nation bound by
mutual commitment and shared memory. In our examination of
fatherhood in America, these are the ultimate stakes.
The Shrinking Father
Not to be overly gloomy, but in some respects it has been all
downhill for fathers since the Industrial Revolution. In
colonial America, fathers were seen as primary and
irreplaceable caregivers. In both law and custom, fathers bore
the ultimate responsibility for the care and well-being of their
children. Well into the 18th century, for example, child-
rearing manuals were generally addressed to fathers, not
mothers. Until the early 19th century, in almost all cases of
divorce, it was established practice to award the custody of
children to the father rather than the mother. Throughout this
period, fathers, not mothers, were the chief correspondents
(senders and receivers of letters) of children living away from
home.
More centrally, fathers largely guided the marital choices of
their children and directly supervised the entry of children,
especially sons, into the world outside the home. Most
importantly, fathers assumed primary responsibility for what
was seen as the most essential parental task: the religious
and moral education of the young. As a result, societal
praise or blame for a child's outcome was customarily bestowed not
(as it is today) on the mother, but rather on the father, who
was assigned the major responsibility for his child's
competence and character.7
Of course, all of this eventually changed: not marginally,
but fundamentally. Industrialization and the modern economy led
to the physical separation of home and work. No longer
could fathers be in both places at once. The major change in
family life in the 19th century was the steady feminization of
the domestic sphere. Accompanying this radical change were a
host of new ideas about gender identity and family life --
some focusing on childhood as a special and separate stage of
life, others on what were believed to be the special
capacities of women to care for children and to create, in
opposition to the outside world dominated by men, a secure
moral ethos for family life.
During this period, then, fathers began their long march from
the center to the periphery of domestic life. As Joseph H.
Pleck observes: "A gradual and steady shift toward a greater
role for the mother, and a decreased and indirect role for the
father is clear and unmistakable."8 Beginning in the 1830s,
child-rearing manuals, increasingly addressed to mothers, began
to deplore the father's absence from the home.9 By 1900,
one worried observer could describe "the suburban husband and
father" as "almost entirely a Sunday institution."10
Within the home, the father retained his formal status as
chief executive, or head of the family, but had ceded to his
wife the role of chief child-raiser, manager, and
decision-maker. As Pleck puts it:
The father continued to set the official standard of
morality and to be the final arbiter of family discipline, but
he did so at more of remove than before:
He stepped in only when the mother's delegated authority failed.11
In short, the fatherhood script was radically rewritten
during the course of the 19th century. Fatherhood became a
far thinner, more shrunken social role. Within the
home, fathers moved to the periphery -- if not formally, then
certainly in practice. In this period, the fatherhood script
became increasingly anchored in, and restricted to, two
paternal tasks: head of the family and breadwinner for the
family.
In our own century, of course, these two roles as well
have undergone profound change. No longer conventional
wisdom, each of them today is a fundamentally
contested idea. Each of them goes to the heart of today's
great disagreements, anxieties, and conflicts about gender
identity and the family -- tensions that are evident not
only among men and women generally but also within homes across
the nation.
At the same time, however, the trendlines are clear: we are
witnessing in our century a continuing decline of
fatherhood as a defined social role. The remarkable
generational changes on this set of issues, illustrated by
the data in Table I, clearly demonstrate the steady
erosion, over the course of the 20th century, of the last
two remaining anchors of the traditional fatherhood script.
Daniel Yankelovich also confirms this steady change in
American attitudes:
Up until the late 1960s, being a real man meant being a
'good provider' for the family. No other conception of what
it means to be a real man came even close.
Concepts of sexual potency, or physical strength, or
strength of character ('manliness'), or even being handy around
the house were relegated to lesser positions of importance in the
identification of traits associated with masculinity. By the late
1970s, however, the definition of a real man as a good
provider had slipped from its number one spot (86 percent
in 1968) to the number three position, at 67 percent.12
Table I
Adult Americans Who Agree that:
"It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the
achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and
family."
Age Group: Percent who agree:
18-29 27
30-44 28
45-59 47
60-69 63
70-79 75
80 & up 82
Source: National Opinion Research Center, combined data for 1986-
1991.
In sum, over the course of the past 200 years, fatherhood has
lost, in full or in large part, each of its four traditional
roles: primary caregiver, moral educator, head of family,
and family breadwinner. Within the home, fatherhood in our
generation has completed its 200-year march from the center
to the periphery. Indeed, that relocation has been so
dramatic that many men today have traveled well beyond the
periphery: they are absent altogether from family life.
The result is that fatherhood as a social role has been
radically diminished. It is diminished in two respects. It
has become smaller. There are simply fewer things that
remain socially defined as a father's work. 'Me script is
shorter; where once there were many pages, now there are only
a few. Second, fatherhood is diminished in that it has
become less important, less socially valued. Influential people in
today's public debate argue that fathers, when all is said and
done, are not very important at all.
Many analysts of gender issues in our century have
pondered Freud's famous question: What do women want?
Fewer have sought to name the most important question,
the core issue, for men. Let me take a stab. In keeping with
my thesis of differences, I believe that, for men, the
question ought to be reformed. Women in our time face
the challenge of opportunities, choices, options. Female gender
identity is being expanded, but not negated. The process,
while anything but simple, is finally more about addition
than subtraction.
For men, it is more about subtraction. The inherited manhood
script in our society is under siege, blamed as the cause
of everything from nuclear weapons to environmental
destruction. Nowhere is this siege more evident and more
consequential than in family life. Accordingly, and
especially in light of this radically shrunken fatherhood role,
the core issue for men today may be less about their desires
than about their functions. Or perhaps it is more accurate
to say that men, more so today than women, cannot name
their desires without affirming their functions -- recognizing
and enjoying the special work that society needs them to do.
Thus the question is not: What do men want? From a
societal perspective, and probably from an individual man's
perspective as well, the far more urgent question is:
What do men do? Central to that question is the fatherhood
script. So the core question then becomes: What, if anything,
do fathers do?
The Superfluous Father
Contemporary American culture has now fully incorporated into
its prevailing family narrative the idea and model of what can
be termed the superfluous father. This conception
is rooted in the belief that fatherhood as a distinctive social
role is unnecessary, undesirable, or both. The essential claim is
that there are not -- or at least ought not to be -- any
parental tasks that essentially and primarily belong to men. The
argument, in short, is that society no longer requires, or can
afford to recognize, any serious difference between norms
of fatherhood and norms of parenthood.
This conception of fatherhood is now ubiquitous in our
culture. It is conventional wisdom -- less a contested
argument than the unifying philosophical premise of almost
all currently fashionable arguments about men, masculinity,
and fatherhood. Its ideologically diverse proponents have
successfully justified it on grounds that are both societal
and personal, pragmatic and utopian. Within elite discourse, at
least, the superfluous father is not simply the core idea. It
is virtually the only idea.
Intellectually, the conception of the superfluous father rests
on two basic cultural propositions, each corresponding to a
widely prevalent image of modern fatherhood. The first
proposition is that fatherhood as a gender-based social role
is literally what the dictionary defines as superfluous -- that
is, exceeding what is necessary. The cultural image here is the
unnecessary or bad father.
The second proposition is that social progress, particularly for
women, as well as the achievement of greater individual male
happiness, depends largely upon a redefinition of
fatherhood based upon the ideal of gender role convergence.
Accordingly, this proposition urges that fathers, for their own
good and also for the sake of women and society as a
whole, transcend gender-specific male roles in favor of
essentially gender-neutral human values. The cultural model
associated with this ideal is the nurturant or good father,
or what many term the "new father."
I have looked through the expert literature and have followed
the public debate on these issues. Perhaps I have
overlooked something. But I cannot locate within elite
discourse even one influential argument or school of thought about
men and family life that does not derive intellectually from
one or both of these propositions, or that does not
deploy, at the center of its narrative, one or both of these
cultural images or types.
Yet I dispute both of them. For ultimately I view these two
propositions not as opposites, but as two supporting ideas for a
larger thesis, two tales with a common moral: the moral of
the superfluous father. Similarly, I view the two cultural types
not ultimately as bad old father versus good new father, but
rather as companions who are more alike than different: two
overlapping expressions of the cultural face of fatherhood
in the United States. Let me explain further.
The Unnecessary Father
The essence of this proposition is that men, generally
speaking, are part of the problem. Specifically, this
proposition is rooted in the belief that, from a societal
perspective on maternal and child well-being, any gender-based
notion of fathers' work is unnecessary at best, destructive at
worst.
This idea is quite popular. Listen to the recent ABC mini-
series, "The Women of Brewster Place," on the subject of black
men. Young, shy woman: "I don't have a husband."
Older, wiser woman: "Well, I've had five, and you ain't
missing much."13 Or listen to Caryn James, a New York Times
television critic, on the increasing number of unmarried
pregnant women now featured on prime-time television dramas
and sit-corns. These new shows have kept television "in touch
with the shifting realities of women's options," the most
important of which is that "women who want children do not
need or necessarily want a spouse underfoot."14
Or look at social work and the related helping professions.
In the United States, argues Martin Wolins, both "social welfare
policy and social work practice" are rooted in "an assumption
of paternal irrelevance." He warns us that several millennia of human
social existence should have been sufficient as evidence that
fathers are worthwhile. Only in the 20th century have we begun to
wonder whether it is possible to do without them and "get away" with
it.15
This is the heart of the proposition: that we can do without
fathers and get away with it. For example, Barbara
Ehrenreich argues that, when poor mothers must choose
between welfare payments and husbands, the course of
wisdom is to choose the welfare payments, since welfare payments
are generally more reliable and less bothersome than men.16
Applying the same logic to the broader society, Anna Coote of the
Institute for Public Policy Research in London insists that
The father is no longer essential to the economic
survival of the unit. Men haven't kept up with the changes in
society, they don't know how to be parents ... At the same time,
women don't have many expectations of what men might provide.17
This philosophy of the unnecessary father also undergirds what is
surely one of today's most influential media images of modern
fatherhood: the dead-beat dad. Across the political spectrum,
liberals and conservatives, feminists and traditionalists -- people
who would never agree on anything else -- seem fervently united on this
one point: there are too many divorced and separated fathers out
there who do not pay their child support. In Governor Bill
Clinton's current stump speech for the Democratic presidential
nomination, for example, cracking down on these dead-beat dads is the
core proposal in his discussion of family values and personal
responsibility. As William Mattox recently put it:
To hear some "experts," one could very easily get the impression that
the 1990s definition of a good father is a man who sends his child-
support payments on time each month. 18
I, too, will jump on this bandwagon. These guys should be forced to
pay. But I also suggest that something is terribly wrong when our
public policy debate collapses the question of fatherhood into a
question of economics. In such an anemic formulation, the father
fulfills his obligations by mailing checks. Fatherhood as a
social role shrinks to the size of a wallet.
In large part, this notion represents a final recognition and
culmination of 200 years of family history in which fathers,
with each passing decade, have become ever further removed
from the center of daily family life. When we consider
families today, we performa sort of mental triage in which
women and children claim our primary attention. Fathers, far
away from the important action, become marginal, irrelevant, or worse.
Yet despite its basis in social reality, and despite its ubiquity as
a cultural proposition, the unnecessary father thesis suffers from
one flaw. It is not true. It is also more than not true. It
is false in the most fundamental sense: as an intellectual
thesis, it is the polar opposite of everything we know -- from
the history of our species, from the social sciences, from
common sense -- about the primary sources of child and
societal well-being. The unnecessary father argument is false
as an assertion, but even more false as an evasion. It simply
dismisses the most fundamental family problem of our time:
male flight from family life. It is false, therefore, in a way
that commands our attention.
Consider, first, the social science evidence. Approximately one
third of all children in the United States today are growing
up apart from their biological fathers. In 1990, over 22
percent were living with only their mothers, compared to
eight percent in 1960. 19 Scholars estimate that over 40
percent of all children born between 1970 and 1984 will
spend at least a significant part of their childhood living in a single-
parent home.20
As of 1990, approximately 14 million children
lived in mother-only households. When families with stepfathers
are added to this total, we find that approximately 19 million
children today live in households that include their
biological mothers, but not their biological fathers. 21
Table II
Living Arrangements of Children in the United States in 1988:
Live with Mother & Father 60 percent
Live with Mother Only 21 percent
Live with Mother & Stepfather 8 percent
Live with Father Only 3 percent
Live with Father & Stepmother 3 percent
Other Arrangements 5 percent
Total of Children Living Apart
From Biological Fathers 34 percent
Source: U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Children,
Youth, and Families, U.S. Children and Their Families: Current
Conditions and Recent Trends, 1989, (Washington, D.C.:Government
Printing Office, 1989), p. 51.
Recent studies demonstrate just how fatherless these children
are. Frank Furstenberg and Kathleen Harris, for example,
recently documented the contacts between divorced fathers
and their children. Of all children living apart from their fathers,
these children would seem the most likely to maintain some type of
relationship with their fathers. Yet Furstenberg and Harris find
that more than half of these children have never visited their
father's home. More than 40 percent do not see their father at all in a
typical year. Only one in five sleeps in a father's home in a typical
month, while only one in six sees a father an average of once or more
per week.
These scholars conclude that a substantial and growing fraction of
non-residential fathers spend little time with their biological
offspring [and do not] offer them much in the way of material or
emotional assistance. The picture that emerges is not an
optimistic one. It raises serious questions about what can and should
be done to strengthen the position of fathers in the family or
make up for their absence. 22
Yet this is the heart of the problem: it is very hard indeed to
"make up for their absence." In the social sciences, absolute proof
is virtually impossible. But if current scholarship proves
anything, it is that children who grow up without their fathers are
worse off -- economically, educationally, psychologically, every way we
can measure -- than children who grow up with their fathers.
To begin with, these children grow up in households with
less money. This is an obvious and widely repeated fact. But it
is also a misunderstood fact. It leads many commentators to
conclude that money-absence, not father-absence, is the fundamental
issue. In yet another iteration of the unnecessary father thesis -- one
that is quite popular among policy analysts -- we are told that there
is very little wrong with single-parent homes that more money and
more services will not cure. As a popular parenting manual,
Ourselves and Our Children, suggests:
"Single parents need several different kinds of help: help measured
in hours of child caretaking time, help sharing the emotional
enterprise of raising the children, and often, financial support of
some kind.�23
Scholars have studied this issue carefully, documenting the
effects on children of fatherless homes while controlling for income -
- that is, eliminating income as a dependent variable in the
studies. They have concluded that father absence, not money absence,
is the core issue. Urie Bronfenbrenner, for example, finds that
controlling for associated factors such as low income, children growing
up in such [female-headed] households are at greater risk for
experiencing a variety of behavioral and educational problems,
including extremes of hyperactivity or withdrawal, lack of
attentiveness in the classroom, difficulty in deferring
gratification, impaired academic achievement, school misbehavior,
absenteeism, dropping out, involvement in socially alienated peer
groups, and, especially, the so-called "teenage syndrome" of
behaviors that tend to hang together -- smoking, drinking, early and
frequent sexual experience, and, in the more extreme cases, drugs,
suicide, vandalism, violence, and criminal acts. Most of these effects
are much more pronounced for boys
than for girls.24
Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, in their careful summary
of the research on the many "intergenerational consequences" of
fatherless homes, place special emphasis on the "family formation
behavior" of girls who grow up without fathers. Among white
families, for example, one major study finds that daughters of single
parents are 53 percent more likely to marry as teenagers, 111
percent more likely to have children as teenagers, 164 percent more
likely to have a premarital birth, and 92 percent more likely to
dissolve their own marriages. 25
Again, income is not the determining issue. McLanahan
and Garfinkel do favor new public policies that would provide
greater economic support for single-parent homes. (So do I.)
But they also insist that we confront the research findings that
increasing the incomes of single mothers would alleviate at
least some of the educational disadvantages now associated with
being a member of a female-headed family, but would not have
much of an impact on out-of-wedlock births or on the
perpetuation of mother-only families. 26
Listen, also, to the nuanced clinical observations of Judith
Wallerstein, whose pioneering studies have explored the long-term
impacts of divorce among middle-class families. She describes why
young teenage girls can idolize their absent fathers:
The idealized father that the young adolescent girl
imagines is the exact opposite of the image that later becomes
prominent in their minds as they grow older -- namely, the
father as betrayer. Both images block the real picture of the
father. And because daughters of divorce often have a hard time
finding out what their fathers are really like, they often
experience great difficulty in establishing a realistic view of
men in general, in developing realistic expectations, and in
exercising good judgment in their choice of partner and in their
relationships with men.
As they get older, many of these young women
have affairs with older men:
... the relationships with older men represent primarily the search for
the parent they never had. They have no conscious memories of being
continuously well-parented as little girls, and so they miss the sense
of having been loved, taken care of, and esteemed. Trading
sex for closeness now, they want to be held and cuddled by their older
lovers, as if they are trying to recapture -- or to experience for the
first time -- the physical nearness that very young children seek by
crawling into daddy's lap.28
She describes many boys who grow up without fathers as cut off from
their feelings and memories, as if a major part of their psychological
life is not available to them. To avoid the pain of some feelings,
they shut out all feelings ... [thereby] suffering from an inhibition
that makes intimacy difficult to establish. Unable to share deeply
hidden feelings, they build lifestyles of solitary interests and habits
to protect these inhibitions from being tested ... this kind of holding
back seems to be a male pattern of coping with the fear of rejection.29
Finally, consider briefly what may well be America's most urgent
social problem: crime. What causes it? Why is it escalating at
such an alarming rate? What, if anything, can be done?
No complex social phenomenon, of course, can be explained by one
fact alone. That said, let me try, since I detect within our
pubic discourse a curious vow of silence, particularly among
elites, regarding an obvious primary source of this problem.
For despite the vast public discussion of crime -- no one can
read a newspaper or watch TV news without encountering it --
almost no attention is devoted to what is almost certainly the
central underlying cause. That cause is fatherlessness.
In Boys Will Be Boys, Myriam Miedzian seeks to identify
the primary source of "criminal and domestic violence" in the
United States. Her answer is what she terms the "male mystique"
-- the values of toughness, dominance,
repression of empathy, and competitiveness that comprise the
inherited manhood script in our society. These historically defined male
norms, she argues, are the seedbeds of crime. Modern violence is the
result of traditional masculinity. Only by fundamentally revising
the latter can we reduce the former.
She describes the father who embodies this destructive masculine
mystique:
He does not express much emotion. He doesn't cry. He is very
concerned with dominance, power, being tough. His taste in movies
runs to John Wayne and Sylvester Stallone. On TV he watches
violent shows like "Miami Vice" and "Hawaii Five-O." Whatever his
actual behavior may be, he is likely to indulge in callous sexual
talk about women. He may feel that a high level of involvement in child
care is unmanly.30
Such fathers, she concludes, "reinforce in their sons just those
qualities that serve to desensitize them and make them more prone
to commit violent acts or condone them." 31
Not to be overly glib, but I would like to offer a good word for
this type of father. Doubtless he is far from perfect, as a man or as
a father. But there is one sin of which he is almost certainly
innocent. He is not the reason why young men commit crimes. In fact,
exactly the opposite is more likely to be true. This type of father --
playing rough with his children, teaching his sons to be tough and
competitive, coming home every night to watch football or crime
shows on TV while seeking to repress some of his anxieties or doubts --
may not deserve the Dad of the Year Award, but as regards the
probability that he or his sons will commit criminally violent acts,
he is much more likely to deserve a letter of commendation from the
local police department than he is to deserve the charge that
Miedzian levels against him.
There are exceptions, of course, but here is the rule. Boys
raised by traditionally masculine fathers generally do not commit
crimes. Fatherless boys commit crimes.
Clinical studies as well as anthropological investigations, for
example, confirm the process through which boys separate from their
mothers in search of the meaning of their maleness. In this
process, the father is irreplaceable. He enables the son to separate
from the mother. He is the gatekeeper for his son, guiding him
into the community of men, teaching him to name the meaning of his
embodiment as a male. In this process, the boy becomes more than the
son of his mother, or even the son of his parents. He becomes the
son of his father. Later, when the boy becomes a man, he will
reunite with the world of women, the world of his mother, through
his spouse and family. In this sense, only by becoming his
father's son can he finally become a good family man.32
When this process of male identity does not succeed -- when the
boy cannot separate from the mother, cannot become the son of his
father -- one main result, in clinical terms, is rage. Rage
against the mother, against women, against society.33 That
is why if we want to learn the identity of the rapist, the
hater of women, the occupant of jail cells, we do not look
first to boys with traditionally masculine fathers. We look
first to boys with no fathers.
In making this argument, I certainly do not seek to
endorse, as a package, all of our society's inherited manhood
codes, any more than I would seek to endorse all fathers.
But fatherhood is in enough trouble without being blamed for
crime, especially since fatherlessness, not fatherhood, is the real
culprit. Fatherhood is the enemy of crime.
The social science evidence strongly supports what one
recent study terms the "strong relationship between crime and one-
parent families."
The relationship 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.34
Moreover, as James Q. Wilson reminds us,
Neighborhood standards may be set by mothers, but they
are enforced by fathers, or at least by adult males. Neighborhoods
without fathers are neighborhoods without men able and willing to
confront errant youth, chase threatening gangs, and reproach
delinquent fathers...the absence of fathers... deprives the community
of those little platoons that informally but effectively control boys
on the street.35
Miedzian acknowledges the connection between fatherlessness
and crime, but only in order to support her larger argument in
favor of replacing traditional conceptions of masculinity. But
this ellision reveals the flaw in her argument. The friend of
violence is not a traditional father. The friend of violence is
a home with no father in it. The two simply cannot be collapsed
together.
In short, there is a link between masculinity and violence,
but not the link that Miedzian describes. The rapid growth of crime in
our society over the past three decades does not derive from
traditional male norms. It derives instead from the decline of
certain traditional male norms -- particularly the norms of family
obligation and the duty to provide for children, the decline of which
has led to growing numbers of fatherless boys.
There is a further irony which I believe haunts Miedzian's
thesis. If you want male violence, move fathers out of the home. If
you want to move fathers out of the home, tell them that the
traditional fatherhood script -- the essence of the manhood code
that they inherited from their parents and grandparents -- is
empty and meaningless.36 Tell them that a father's work, in exactly
the degree to which it differs from a parent's work, is unwanted
work. Tell them, in short, that fatherhood as a distinctive
social role is unnecessary at best, harmful at worst.
Increasingly, this is exactly the message that our culture
sends to men today. In this sense, if fatherhood is simply no longer
a cultural ideal worth defending -- if it is more like a problem to be
overcome -- we should not be surprised by the continuing
decline of fatherhood in our society and the ongoing flight of men from
family life. If a dominant goal of our elite public discourse on
the family is to remove the influences of traditional masculinity
from our homes and from the lives of our children, we are likely to
discover, sooner rather than later, that we have succeeded all too well.
The New Father
If, as a cultural proposition, the unnecessary father is an
irrelevant or disagreeable fellow whom we would not want to marry our
daughter, the new father is fast becoming our culture's best
family friend -- the answer to our worries about what it means to be
a man, the answer to our concerns about how to care for children, the
answer to our dreams about social justice, personal happiness, and
equality between the sexes. If the unnecessary father emblemizes
irresponsibility and flight, the new father embodies domesticity and
care. The unnecessary father is someone we can get along without.
The new father is someone we need.
He is nurturing. He expresses his emotions. He is a healer, a
companion, a colleague. He is a deeply involved parent. He changes
diapers, he gets up at 2:00 a.m. to feed the baby, he goes beyond
"helping out" in order to share equally in the work, joys, and
responsibilities of domestic life. Because he is a favorite of the
media -- he is the one required guest on every television show that
devotes a special segment to Fathers' Day -- his influence in the
culture is larger than the actual number of such fathers. Fathers
like him are finding that "equal sharing" is more satisfying and fair-
minded than just doing the token chores they once considered "dad's
work." Men who used to "help out" their wives by babysitting now see
child-rearing as an important part of their lives, and in many homes
both parents share this responsibility, the work and decision-making as
well as the fun of parenting.37
Letty Cottin Pogrebin, in Family Politics, devotes a chapter to
celebrating the emergence of "the new fathers" who do not have to
pretend. A man in Albuquerque, for example, loves being a father so
much that he wanted to share his enthusiasm with a father-to-be. He
gave his best pal a baby shower at which men friends gathered to toast
the forthcoming baby with good will, good food, and a rap session
about father feelings. All over the country, men are materializing in
childbirth courses, child-care centers, and early childhood education;
they are staying home to care for their own children, braving the
quizzical stares of cops and mothers as they push a baby carriage or
watch their children in the playground; asking for joint custody;
demanding paternity leave; and taking baby-care classes to prepare to
be more skillful, better prepared fathers.38
To advance this ideal, she argues, our culture is "breaking the
absurd linkage of Father with Breadwinner, understanding that one role
is not dependent on the other and that neither role determines
'masculinity."' We are also eliminating "sex specialization"
within the family: "Sex-specialized caring imperils children because it
is contingent on parents' sex role choreography rather than children's
needs."39
The social science evidence suggests that the new father is
more than an abstract cultural exhortation. It is affecting the
way many married men lead their lives. Joseph Pleck concludes
that young married fathers today spend from 20 to 30 percent
more time in child care and domestic work than did young
married fathers in the early 1960s. Interestingly, Pleck also
finds that, among two-earner couples, nearly one mother in five
reports that the father is the primary caregiver while the mother
is working -- which means, among other things, that more of these
children are being cared for by fathers than are in day care
centers.40 Similarly, Judith Wallerstein reports from her
longitudinal studies that
We have seen a major shift in the attitudes of fathers, more
of whom are trying to maintain an active parenting role in their
children's lives. 41
I, too, find much to commend in the concept of the new
father. I may well be something of a new father myself -- if more
in practice than in theory. In short, I have a lot to say in
support of nurturing fathers.
But at the risk of being the skunk at the garden party, I will
also argue that, as a cultural proposition, the new father is
part and parcel of a culturally impoverished conception of
fatherhood: what I term the superfluous father. My claim,
therefore, is that the new father closely resembles the
unnecessary father. As models, they are more alike than
different. Though they are almost always portrayed as opposites --
one good, one bad -- they are ultimately two related chapters of a
single cultural
narrative: the narrative of the superfluous father, in which
fatherhood as a distinctive social role is either irrelevant or
undesirable.
As a cultural proposition, the new father rests upon a
premise and an imperative.
The premise is that social progress, especially for women, as
well as the attainment of individual male happiness depends in
large part upon overturning traditional masculine norms within the
home.42 The social progress component of this premise is well
summarized by Michael Lamb, who tells us that, in recent years,
reformers began to realize that further progress toward the
attainment of women's rights was dependent on changes in men's
roles. First in Scandinavia and later in other countries,
reformers came to realize that social and gender roles are
intimately interrelated, because male and female roles are largely
defined in relation to one another. Consequently, it is impossible
to bring about major changes in either without complementary
changes in the other. More specifically, it was recognized that
women were not going to achieve equal opportunity in the
employment sector, or become frill participants in this sector, unless
and until men assumed an increasing responsibility for family and
home work.43
Fortunately, in this premise, societal needs coincide with
the individual needs of men in pursuit of happiness. In this area,
public and private requirements converge; the political serves the
personal. As James Levine argues, the ideal of the new father is
based not only on the needs of women and children, but also in large
part on the "meaning of fatherhood in the lives of men themselves."
Some 15 years after the rebirth of the women's movement,
and after scores of books about the meaning of motherhood in
women's lives, a literature by and about fathers is now beginning to
find its way into popular consciousness and college curricula. This
diverse literature ... calls for fathers to be more involved with
their children because of the enriching effect such involvement
will have on men's own lives.44
The imperative that flows from this premise is role convergence.
The essence of this imperative is the removal of socially defined
male and female roles from family life. Accordingly, this
imperative urges the increasing displacement of gender-specific family
roles by ideals of human development based on gender-neutral
universal values. In part, then, the imperative simply urges the
reduction or elimination of sex specialization within the
family. But in a larger sense, the imperative warns that any notion of
socially defined roles for human beings constitutes an oppressive and
socially unnecessary restriction on the full emergence of human
potentiality within each individual.
Benjamin Spock, who has probably had more influence
on American parents than any other person in this century, has
substantially revised his famous book, Baby and Child Care, to
incorporate the ideal and model of the new father based on this
imperative of gender role convergence. Women, he tells us in the
updated version,
in trying to liberate themselves, have realized that
men, too, are victims of sexist assumptions -- sexual stereotyping ...
When individuals feel obliged to conform to a conventional male
or female sex stereotype, they are all cramped to a degree,
depending on how much each has to deny and suppress his or her
natural inclinations. 45
Spock now urges parents to minimize gender-based roles,
for both themselves and for their children. Regarding household
chores, for example, he "used to assume that it was wise for
parents to strengthen the maleness of their boys and the femaleness of
their girls by differentiating ... the chores they assigned to them."
But
I believe now that it's sound for boys and girls to
have basically the same ones, just as I think it's wise for men
and women to share in the same occupations, at home and
outside. Boys can do as much bed making, room cleaning,
dishwashing as their sisters. And girls can take part in yard work
and car washing -- as I hope their mothers will.46
More poetically but in exactly this vein, Mark Gerzon
celebrates the emerging cultural narrative of family life in which
Couples may write their own scripts, construct
their own plots, with unprecedented freedom. Whether the
encounter is between strangers on a bus, colleagues in a meeting,
or lovers in bed, a man and a woman are free to find the fullest
range of possibilities. Neither needs to act in certain ways because of
preordained cross-sexual codes of conduct. 47
This is a vision, ultimately, of freedom. In some ways it
is a bracing, exhilarating vision, bravely contemptuous of
boundaries and inherited limitations, distinctly American
in its radical insistence on self-created identity. It draws
upon the American myth, the nation's founding ideals; it echoes much
of what is best in the American character. It is the vision of
Whitman in his "Song of the Open Road."
From this hour I ordain myself loos'd of limits and
imaginary lines,
Going where I list, my own master total and absolute
There is so much to commend in this vision. It is the
reigning ethos of much of contemporary American culture. But as a
social ethic for fatherhood -- or motherhood --I dispute it.
I dispute it because it demands the obliteration of precisely
those cultural boundaries, limitations, and behavioral norms that
valorize parental altruism and therefore favor the well-being of
the human infant. I dispute it because it denies the necessity
and even repudiates the existence of fathers' work: of irreplaceable
work on behalf of family that is essentially and primarily the work
of men. I dispute it, finally, because it rests upon a
narcissistic and ultimately self-defeating conception of personal
happiness and human completion. Thus it cannot be, at bottom, the
vision of the good father. It is finally the vision of Huck Finn,
the boy who ran away from society, and of Peter Pan, the boy
who would never grow up. 48
Fundamentally, the new father's imperative of role
convergence is based on the sexual equivalent of what some political
scientists term the "end of-history." 49 Politically, the end of
history refers to the ending of the historic contest between
communism and capitalism, between the two political ideologies whose
struggle, now over, shaped the politics of the modern era. The
struggle is over because one side won everything. The losing
side not only lost, but seeks now to emulate the victor. Thus in
world-political terms, consensus replaces conflict; sameness replaces
difference; universalism replaces particularism.
Sexually, the end of history would refer to the ending of any
historically inherited and socially important differences between males
and females. Unlike past sexual history, which was based on
differences and complementarities, the end of sexual history would
denote the fundamental social irrelevance of sexual roles -- a
new fusion of previously divided components of humanity.
Moreover, the end of sexual history also suggests the end
of a tension or struggle. As in the political analogue, the struggle
ends because, at least within the home, one side wins everything.
The losing side not only loses, but also seeks to emulate the
winning side. Sexually, the losing side is aggression,
competition, toughness, and other historically masculine norms. The
winning side is nurture, cooperation, empathy, and other
historically feminine norms. Accordingly, in the realm of domestic life
-- in public life, the trend is the same but the other side wins --
the historic tensions rooted in sexual complementarities are
replaced by a new consensus rooted in sexual universalities.
Independence replaces dependency. Sameness replaces difference.
Particularisms evaporate into the whole. History ends.
I will leave it to others to debate the end of political
history. But I decline to accept the end of sexual history, either as
an empirical fact or as a utopian goal. The peculiar trait of our
species -- unique among the mammals -- is the remarkably long
period of time in which the human child depends on his mother
and father for survival. During the period of life that David
Gutmann calls the "parental emergency," the needs of the child
compel mothers and fathers to specialize in their labor and to adopt
socially and sexually mediated family roles. In part, these
adaptations are required simply to get the work done. But more
importantly, they help and also pressure adults -- especially men
-- to restrict their desires for omnipotentiality in favor of
serving the needs of the dependent child.
This sexual division of labor within the family is a common
trait in human societies, occurring across history and cultures,
precisely because it is integral to the survival and
reproduction of the society. The human child does not
know or care about some disembodied abstraction called "parent."
What it needs is a mother and a father who will
work together, in overlapping but different ways, on its behalf
Thus the sexual division of labor is not, at bottom, the result of
social conditioning or cultural values. Nor does it have
anything to do with fostering the desire for omnipotentiality
that is present in all humans. Rather, it is ultimately the
consequence of our biological embodiment as sexual beings and
of the inherent qualities of the mother-child bond.
These basic facts have not disappeared and will not.
History continues. Moreover, the necessity and irreplaceability of a
father's work has not disappeared and will not. In
service to the child and to the social good, fathers do
certain things that other people, including mothers, do not do as
often, as naturally, or as well. When fathers do not do this
work -- as is increasingly the case in our society -- child and
societal well-being declines.
Historically, the good father, above all, protects his
family, provides for its material needs, devotes himself to the moral
education of his children, and represents his family's
interests in the larger world. This work is necessarily rooted
in a repertoire of inherited male values: historically and
socially mediated understandings of what it means to be a
good father. These values are not limited to toughness,
competition, and aggression -- but they certainly include them.
These "hard" male values have changed and will continue to
change. But they will not disappear or turn into their opposites.
Nor should we Wish them to do so.
Finally, I dispute the new father�s imperative of gender
role convergence because I refuse to credit its promise of greater
human happiness. As an ideal of human completion, gender role
convergence reflects a philosophy of radical individualism.
Indeed, androgyny constitutes the most radical conception of
expressive individualism that we can imagine.
It is the belief, quite simply, that human completion is a
solo act. It is the insistence that the pathway to human
happiness lies in transcending the old polarities of sexual
embodiment in order for each individual man and woman to
embrace and express all of human potentiality within his or her
self. No longer, in this view, do we accept otherness
as a biosocial fact. Instead, we appropriate otherness into the
sell No longer, for example, would a man alone consider himself
in some way to be incomplete. The fractured moieties
of male and female, child and adult, reside together as part of
the omnipotentiality of the individual man. Now each man, within the
cell of himself, can be complete.
I submit that this idea, so deeply a part of our culture, is
fool's gold. It is a denial of sexual complementarily and
ultimately, I believe, a denial of generativity -- particularly
male generativity, which is, much more than the female's,
largely a social construction. Especially for men, then, its
promise of happiness is a cruel hoax. Like all forms of
narcissism, its final product is not fulfillment but emptiness.
If fatherhood has anything to say to men, it is that human
completion is not a solo act.
The Good Family Man
This story shall the good man teach his son.50
It is odd that there is so much literature available to help
parents -- mothers especially -- to nurture their children and
support the children's movement from infancy to childhood, and so
little to help parents -- fathers especially -- encourage young
people to develop independence, self-reliance, and effectiveness ... In
general, fathers need help in clarifying for themselves what they are
about in their relationships to their children. Some of the
answer may be in helping fathers to be better parents, but much of
it, I think, is in helping fathers to be better fathers.51
I conclude this essay by revisiting my point of departure:
the fatherhood script. If our culture's prevailing story of
fatherhood is fundamentally flawed, what is a better story?
If today's impoverished script features a character called the
superfluous father, what type of man ought to be featured in a richer
cultural narrative? If the work of the father is irreplaceable,
what is the content of that work? What do fathers do?
Consider, to begin, the cultural model that preceded our
currently prevailing story. That model was the good family man. As a
phrase of speech, it was once widely heard in our culture,
bestowed on men deserving it as a compliment and a badge of
honor. Rough translation: He puts his family first.
Ponder the three words. "Good": moral values. "Family":
purposes larger than the sell "Man": a norm of masculinity. Yet
today, especially within elite culture, who hears this phrase? It
sounds antiquated, almost embarrassing.
Part of the reason, of course, is the success of the
women's movement. Women today enjoy opportunities in the workplace
and in public life that were largely unavailable to their
mothers and grandmothers. Though the employment patterns of
mothers and fathers are far from identical, a majority of mothers
today, including a majority of mothers with young children, work
outside the home as well as in it. Moreover, most married
couples today, especially younger couples, favor the ideal of shared
authority between spouses and reject, at least in principle, earlier
norms of sexual inequality and male domination. Consequently,
two of the ideas once widely associated with the good family
man -- man as sole breadwinner and man as head of the family --
are declining as cultural ideals and are no longer accepted by
most young couples.
Clearly, therefore, we cannot enrich the fatherhood
script for our time simply by reinstating an earlier script. Such
an exercise in cultural irrendentism will fail, and ought to fail. -
Nor is it possible simply to confect new cultural scripts out of nothing
more than our own imaginations as informed by today's elite
fashions. It would not work, since most ordinary people would be
wise enough to ignore it. Nor should we want it to work.
A third approach -- the only feasible one, I believe -- is
to draw upon our available repertoire of inherited cultural meanings
to imagine the new script. I begin, therefore, with good family man.
I begin with him in part because my parents and grandparents
did and in part because I simply cannot envision a good society
that would not celebrate the ideal of the man who puts his family
first. Our culture's task, then, is to revive and revise for our
time a widely shared conception of the good family man. Perhaps it is
best to envision our audience as a twelve-year-old boy. What is
the story of fatherhood that we will tell to him? What if he were
to ask: What does the good family man do?
The good family man puts his family first. In part, this
means for the good father exactly what it means for the good
mother. For example, they both believe in marital permanence. To
both of them, the marital bond is not contingent on other things,
such as fluctuations in their feelings. It is less a calculation than a
faith. Secondly, both of them love their children at the highest
level of priority. There are other family things that they
do and believe in basically similar ways, but these are the main
two.
But a man also puts his family first in ways that are his
own. As a man and as the father, he has his own special work. In the
deepest sense, this work is irreplaceable. It cannot be done by
anyone or anything else.
1. The good family man protects his family.
Men are bigger and stronger than women. This gendered
aspect of embodiment carries powerful social meaning. Indeed,
many traditional male values -- the ability to contain emotions,
to disengage, and to treat others instrumentally -- derive from
this core fact. Men are better than women at physical combat.
Thus families, neighborhoods, and nations prefer to call upon men
for physical protection. In turn, cultures across the world
require that men "win" -- often fight for -- their manhood status in
tests of physical courage and ability.52
Moreover, a mother with a newborn child is, in the literal
meaning of the word, vulnerable. They require protection --
sometimes in the physical sense of protection from danger,
sometimes in the general sense of protection from outside
pressures. The good family man provides this service to his family.
A practical question to test this idea. The family is asleep
upstairs. An intruder is heard, apparently breaking in. Everyone is
scared. Who goes downstairs?
2. The good family man provides for his family's
material needs.
The role of provider is no longer the domain of the
father alone. But while the father is often not the sole provider,
he is usually the main provider for his family's material needs,
especially when his children are young. In the realm of the
workplace, men earn higher incomes than women, work longer hours and
more years, hold different types of jobs, achieve more status and
power, and pursue workplace success at a higher level of priority.
In short, the father and mother today usually share a common but
unequal commitment to paid employment outside the home. Few young
women today seek or expect to be a lifelong mother and
homemaker. Most seek and expect to hold jobs or pursue careers
both before they have children and after the children are older or
grown. When children are young, some mothers will wish to
maintain virtually the same commitment to paid employment as do
their husbands. Most will not. Some other mothers will be forced
to work, against their wishes. But most mothers will wish and will be
able to reduce or eliminate their commitment to paid employment
during this period. It is during this period of the "parental
emergency," therefore, that the father assumes a special
responsibility in providing for his family's material needs. The good
family man views this task not as an alternative to family life, but
as his commitment to it and his special work within it.
3. The good family man teaches physical prowess to his
children.
Mothers have varieties of courage, including physical
courage, that fathers lack. But for men, much more than women,
physical strength and capacity -- in the family context, the
ability to protect and to ward off danger -- deeply inform the male
sense of self and of social status. Because physical prowess is a part
of male sexual identity, it is also integral to the male sex drive,
including (in a way that is not true for women) sexual arousal and the
ability to engage in sexual intercourse.
This paternal identity with physical prowess is evident
from the first moments of fatherhood. For example, studies
reveal that fathers, as compared to mothers, spend
proportionately more time playing with their infant sons and
daughters. Moreover, fathers engage in more physically vigorous,
rough-and-tumble play with their infant children than
do mothers. Children learn early that their father is especially
fun to play with, just as they learn that their mother is a special
source of comfort and soothing.53 -
The father's play with the infant foreshadows his later role
with the child. Compared to the mother, the father's
relationship with his child is less symbiotic and more
dissonant.54 Accordingly, it can be especially through the father
that the child learns to relate to strangers and feel comfortable in
strange situations. In this sense, the father is able to serve as a
secure gateway through which his children can approach the world
outside the home.55 This is a special and enduring rhythm of the
father-child bond.
The father's gendered identity with physical prowess and
stamina also leads him frequently to a special interest in
physically competitive rituals such as sports or hunting, not
only for himself but also for his children, especially sons. These
are important male bonding rites. In a familial sense, they can be
understood as the father initiating his son into the community of
men. In this sense, the son who kills his first deer or hits his
first home run experiences the secular equivalent of a baptism or
bar mitzvah -- a coming of age ritual, based in action and
testing, in which the boy is metaphorically reborn, this time of
the father.
For the father, such rituals are both gendered and
engendering. They are also both a celebration of his generativity --
a kind of prayer of thanks for his child -- and a vicarious
but powerful reconnection to his own childhood and to his
own prior physicality. These rituals are increasingly ignored and
even ridiculed in our culture, especially among elites, but for
many fathers they remain a part of a father's work: not only a
renewed affirmation of his own manhood, but also a statement of faith
in himself as a procreator.
4. The good family man fosters character and competence
in his children
Though responsibility for the moral upbringing of a
child ideally is shared between mother and father, fathers have
a special and distinctive contribution to make in guiding
their children toward successful outcomes in adult life.
Many researchers have noted a biological basis for the
differences between male and female incentives for childrearing.
Since women are born with a finite number of eggs and
a shorter period of fertility than men, they have the primary
incentive to secure the biological viability of their
offspring. By contrast, men, who are born with a renewable
supply of sperm and a longer period of fertility, have a weaker
incentive to preserve the viability of prospective offspring,
since failure does not as dramatically compromise the possibility
of future reproductive success.
Consequently, at the most basic level, successful
childrearing for women means achieving the survival of the
infant. In comparison, childrearing for men has more to do
with ensuring successful adult outcomes for their children. The
father's biological handiwork is expressed through the visible deeds
and achievements of his children in the larger world.
In other words, a father produces, not just children, but socially
viable children.
The father's special task, therefore, is to contribute to the
future success of his children by guiding, instructing,
correcting, and sponsoring them as they move toward adulthood.
This does not mean that mothers do not play an important role
in fostering competence and character as well. However, fathers
tend to be more deeply invested and deeply attached to
childrearing work associated with children's performance in the
world outside the home.
Indeed, this has been one of the defining cultural
ideals of fatherhood. As John Demos shows, colonial fathers bore
primary responsibility for the outcomes of their children,
especially their sons: "Sons were seen as continuing a man's
accomplishments, indeed his very character, into the future. Thus
would a successful son reflect credit on his father --
the credit of 'good name' or 'good repute.'" 56 Since that time,
paternal responsibility for character and competence has declined
dramatically, but it has not vanished. There remains
a solid basis for a revitalized script. For example, among the
men profiled in his study, Robert Weiss notes that the meaning
of fatherhood is closely tied to a sense of accomplishment in
bringing up honorable and competent children. Fathers invest
heavily in their children's ability to perform well in the world.
They take great pride in their children's achievements and,
conversely, experience anxiety, distress, and a sense of personal
failure when their children get into trouble or do badly as they
enter adult life.57
Consider the following story. A man's college-age son
gets drunk, causes a disturbance, and lands in jail. The father bails
the son out of jail and, several days later, arranges for the young
man to consult a psychologist. After his son has had a few
sessions, the father asks the psychologist for his professional
assessment. The psychologist launches into a long discussion of
adolescent angst but finally reassures the father: "Nothing to worry
about. Typical identity crisis stuff." The father lets the news sink
in. Then he says: "Thank you, doctor, but I think you've got it
wrong. My son is a bum." 58
It is hard to imagine a mother saying the same thing.
Fathers, more than mothers, are haunted by the fear that their
children will turn out to be bums, largely because a father
understands that his child's character is, in some sense, a measure of
his character as well. Put another way, the largest test of the good
family man is whether he is able to raise good children.
5. The good family man represents his family's interests
in the larger world.
Fathers mobilize to deal with crises that threaten children
and their opportunities to achieve successful adulthood. To begin
with, they confront dangers and threats that jeopardize the
physical safety of the child. Though fathers need not, under
ordinary circumstances, devote their time to protecting their
families from physical attack, there remain occasions when a
father's physical strength and courage are required. More
commonly, fathers take action to rescue their children from trouble.
As Robert Weiss notes, the more serious the trouble, as viewed by
the family, the more likely the father will intervene. In
particular, fathers become involved in crises in which children
may diminish their chances for successful adulthoods:
A daughter who becomes pregnant out of wedlock
and so may have to drop out of school, a son who fails two
courses and is suspended, a son who is discovered to be drug
dependent, a daughter whose car is demolished in an accident -- all
these become occasions for fathers to involve themselves actively
with adolescent or adult children. 59
Of course, fathers cannot always steer a child in the right
direction. But their task is to try: to express their paternity
through agency in the world on behalf of their children.
6 The good family man is constant: he stays the
course.
Ordinary steadfastness may seem unworthy of special attention or
praise. Yet, in a society of fathers who leave, we should not
minimize the importance of the fathers who, in the words of the
gospel hymn, "keep on keeping on" in service to their families.
The majority of American men, after all, do not have particularly
exciting, spiritually enriching jobs. They get up in cold houses on
dark mornings, grab an Egg McMuffin on the way to work, worry
about their boss's mood and how many new orders they'll fill that
day, put in their eight or ten hours, and head home, stopping for
a gallon of milk along the way. Indeed, this constancy, this
willingness to "stay the course," is one of the basic contributions
fathers make to the security and well-being of their children.
Even a father's emotional inarticulateness, now nearly
universally criticized, has an altruistic dimension; by keeping his
feelings to himself, a man protects his wife and children from
worries that might undermine their sense of peace and security.
Stoicism is now out of fashion, and certainly more emotional give-
and-take, more physical warmth and affection, do contribute to
stronger bonds with children. Yet the regular, steady,
uncomplaining commitment to work, however difficult, tedious or even
demeaning, is a hallmark of the good family man. The good family
man uses his strength to serve, not rule, his family.
The father's desire to protect his family, as well as his
gendered identity with physical prowess, both in turn reflect a larger
component of male identity and a father's work. That component is
power. Or more precisely, the use of power by men to do fathers' work.
Historically, this power -- derived from male embodiment and
shaped by culture --has been the basis of patriarchy, including the rule
of the family by the father or the elder male. This concept
reflected a philosophy, a moral paradigm: man as ruler, woman
as ruled. Superiority over inferiority. Strength over dependency.
Aggression over nurture. Father over mother. This aspect of the old
script is no longer acceptable to most people in our society. At
the same time, the new script cannot be one of androgyny or sameness.
Instead, the new model should replace a norm of rulership with a
norm of service. It is men's work, male leadership -- protection,
provision, physicality, moral education of children, and special
agency outside the home -- understood as service to family. It
repudiates any notion of moral hierarchy. It overturns the false
linkage between gender difference and gender worth. The work of the
mother is just as morally significant as that of the father: just
as socially important, as worthy of praise, and just as authoritative,
both within the family and in the larger society.
I recommend for fathers the model of service precisely because I
did not invent it. It is one of the deepest ideas of the Judeo-
Christian moral tradition: the one who leads is the one who serves.
This concept, then, suggests the largest and best definition of the
good family man: a man who uses his power to serve his family. This is
what fathers do.
8 The good family man finds happiness in generativity.
Fatherhood calls men to adult responsibilities. Indeed, in many
societies, a man is not part of the community of adults until he
becomes a father. Moreover, fatherhood, like manhood itself, is
continually in the making. It is achieved through the steadfast
meeting of obligations to others, through agency in the world on behalf
of one's offspring.
Consequently, the task of raising children is, for men especially,
a pathway to a frilly realized maturity. Children endow a man's life
with a larger meaning. They confer a special blessing on his
worldly endeavors, endeavors that might otherwise seem small and
unworthy. Children make it possible for a man to believe that he has
lived a good and purposeful life.
Without this focus, this harnessing of unruly energies to a
fundamental social task, men remain forever boyish and unformed.
Judith Wallerstein observes that young divorced fathers, once
separated from their children, seem to have their development
blocked. Some never recover a sense of purpose or direction: they
cannot grow up into fully mature men outside the structure of the
family. 60 Even older fathers often lose their bearings when
they live apart from their children. Unable to guide and
sponsor their children in a predictable and routine way, they
withdraw altogether or try to "start over with a new family. 61
The failure to gain a perspective on the future
beyond the self has profound consequences. In Erik Erikson's
classic formulation, it leads to narcissism, psychological
invalidism, and, ultimately, complete stagnation. In the final stage
of life, men who have not engendered and cared for others cannot
come to terms with their own impending death. 62
Yet this Eriksonian notion of happiness and human
completion is radically at odds with today's prevailing cultural
ideal of happiness. In the contemporary context, the family
is often viewed as an obstacle to individual happiness, and family
roles and responsibilities are regarded as drags on human freedom.
As I have argued, even the effort to promote "new fathers"
derives from the categories and language of expressive
individualism. Thus, the nurturant father is the man who has been able
to express his feminine side, to discover and unleash buried
potentialities, to become a more complete person.
This formula for male happiness ultimately disappoints.
Despite its great promise, it leads to restlessness, loneliness,
boredom and anxiety. The reward of happiness and human completion
lies elsewhere. Happiness -- or the promise of happiness -- comes
about through the pursuit of certain abiding commitments. Some
of these, for fathers, are gendered commitments. For the good
family man, then, the pursuit of happiness is neither elusive nor
disappointing. It comes about in the daily work of being a good
and faithful father. It is less discovered or given than earned. It is
earned, finally, by following in his family life the biblical
admonition of Paul: "Stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be
strong." 63
1 The idea of fatherhood as a "cultural invention' is taken from
John Demos, Past, Present, and Personal: The Family and the
Life Course in American History (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1986), p. 64. My notion of a "fatherhood script" has been
influenced by the discussion of 'manhood codes' in David D.
Gilmore, Manhood in the Makiniz: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
2 James Q. Wilson, "Human Nature and Social Progress," the May
9, 1991 Bradley Lecture of the American Enterprise institute,
Washington, D.C. See also Myriam Medzian, Boys Will Be Boys:
Breaking the Link Between Masculinity and Violence (New York:
Doubleday, 1991).
3 Gilmore, 0 . cit. p. 225.
4 Mark Gerzon, A Choice of Heroes: The Changing Faces of American
Manhood (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982), p. 262.
5 Arlie Hochschild's study of two-career parents, The
Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home
(New York: Viking, 1989), plainly illustrates the confusion,
tension, and conflict among couples trying to follow the rules
prescribed by the new scripts or, as she terms it, "gender
ideologies." Though the book advocates a 'national social
movement to support ... a public challenge to the prevailing
notion of manhood," it offers a portrait of unhappy stalemate with
families, hardly an encouraging sign that the revolution
is at hand. (Pages 188-199, passim).
6 David Gutmann, Reclaimed Powers: Toward a New Psychology
of Men and Women in Later Life (New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1987), pp. 235-253.
7 Demos, 012. cit., pp. 44-6; Carl N. Degler, At Odds: Women and
the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), p. 73.
8 Joseph H. Pleck, "American Fathering in Historical
Perspective," in Michael Kimmel (ed.), Changing Men: New
Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity (New York: Russell
Sage, 1987), p. 86.
9 Degler, Op. cit., p. 77.
10 Demos, Op, cit., p. 61.
11 Pleck, Op. cit., p. 89.
12 Daniel Yankelovich, The Affluence Effect, paper presented to
the Brookings institution Seminar Series on Values and Public
Policy, August 20, 1991.
13 Cited in Jack Kammer, "Drugs, murders, crime and the special
problems of males," Baltimore Sun, Perspective Page (Section M),
March 26, 1989.
14 Caryn James, "A Baby Boom on TV As Biological
Clocks Cruelly Tick Away,' New York Times, October 16, 1991, p.
C15.
15 Martin Wolins, "The Gender Dilemma in Social Welfare:
Who Cares for Children?' in Michael E. Lamb and Abraham Sagi
(eds.),
Fatherhood and Family Policy (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates,
1983), pp.113,121.
16 Barbara Ehrenreich and Frances Fox Piven, "Women and
the Welfare State," in Irving Howe (ed.), Alternatives: Proposals for
America from the Democratic Left (New York: Pantheon, 1984), pp. 41-60.
17 Cited in Bryan Appleyard, "Only nuclear families can defuse this
social A-bomb,' (London) Sunday Times September 22, 1991, p. 2-2.
18 William R. Mattox, Jr., "Family vs. Work: Don't Leave Dads
Out of the Picture," Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1991.
19 " Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March
1990", Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 450, (Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of the Census, March 1990), pp. 5, 45.
20 Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., and Kathleen Mullan Harris, 'The
Disappearing American Father? Divorce and the Waning Significance of
Biological Parenthood," unpublished paper of March 1990, p. 3.
21 The number 19 million is a conservative estimate,
combining 1988 data for mother-stepfather families
with 1990 data for mother-only families. It represents
approximately 30 percent of all children living with at least
one biological parent and approximately 34 percent of all children
under age 18.
22 Furstenberg and Harris, Op. cit. pp. 1-2.
23 Boston Women's Health Book Collective, Ourselves
and Our Children (New York: Random House 1978), pp. 145-146.
24 Urie Bronfenbrenner, "Discovering What Families Do,' in
David Blankenhorn, Steven Bayme, and
Jean Bethke Elshtain (eds.), Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment
to the American Family (Milwaukee:
Family Service America, 1990), p. 34.
25 Irwin Garfunkel and Sara S. McLanahan, Sinizie Mothers
and Their Children: A New American
Dilemma (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1986), pp. 30-
31.
26 Ibid., p. 33.
27 Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee,
Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade
After Divorce (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1990), p. 244.
28 Ibid., p. 66.
29 Ibid., p. 70.
30 Miedzian, Op. cit., p. 83.
31 p. 83.
32 Gilmore, Op. cit., pp. 26-29.
33 I am grateful to David Gutmann for his comments on
this issue.
34 Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and William A. Galston, "Putting
Children First: A Progressive Family Policy
for the 1990s,' (Washington, D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute,
September 1990), p. 14.
35 James Q. Wilson, "Changing Values, Changing
Problems,' paper presented to the Brookings
Institution Seminar Series on Values and Public Policy, November
5,1991. Quoted with permission of author.
See also: Douglas Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, 'Social Structure
and Criminal Victimization," Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 25 (L February 1988), pp. 27-52;
R. J. Sampson, "Neighborhood and Crime:
The Structural Determinants of Personal Victimization,' Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, pp.
7-40, but especially pp. 23-25.
36 Alice Hochschild, for example, argues that
inherited notions of fatherhood are rudimentary and
underdeveloped. She writes: "It is not that men have an elaborate
ideal of fatherhood and then don't live up
to it. Their idea is embryonic to begin with. They often limit
that idea by comparing themselves only to their
own fathers, and not, as more involved men did, to their mothers,
sisters, or other fathers. As a Salvadoran
delivery man put it, 'I give my children everything my father gave
me.' But Michael Sherman gave his twins what
his mother gave him.' Hochschild, Op. cit, p. 229. Michael Sherman
is a "new father" interviewed by Hochschild.
37 Julie Wheelock, 'The 'New' Father: Are Old Sexist
Stereotypes About Childrearing Breaking
Down?", Television & Families (Summer 1991), p. 14.
38 Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Family Politics: Love and
Power on an Intimate Frontier (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1983), p. 206.
39 lbid., pp. 197, 209.
40 Joseph H. Pleck, "Family-Supportive Employer
Policies: Are They Relevant to Men?", unpublished
paper dated August 12, 1991, pp. 1-2.
41 Wallerstein and Blakeslee, 012. cit., p. 303.
42 It is revealing that, as a cultural model, the new father is chiefly
identified with the nurture of infants and very small children, not
with children in the latency stage or teenage years. Thus, the
new father is most evident at precisely that moment in the life cycle
when gender identities diverge most dramatically and therefore
when that divergence most threatens the ideal of role
convergence. Although infants obviously benefit from the loving
attention of a father, it is also true that infants need fathers less
than do older children. Clearly, therefore, the new father ideal is
largely shaped by forces other than the developmental schedule of the
child.
43 Michael E. Lamb, "Fatherhood and Social
Policy in International Perspective: An Introduction," in
Lamb and Sagi (eds.), OIR. cit., p. 2. This notion also helps
explain our society's current preoccupation, in the
scholarly literature and in the media, with the father's
relationship to the infant. The birth of a child literally
requires that mothers and fathers conform to divergent gender
identities. Yet, to many advocates and analysts,
the imposition of such divergent roles, however temporary, is
viewed as regressive. Therefore, fathers must be
recruited to identify with and share in the nurturing role
so as to minimize sexual differences and thereby
advance the goal of gender equality.
44 James A. Levine, Joseph H. Pleck, and Michael E.
Lamb, "The Fatherhood Project,' in lbid. p. 102.
45 Benjamin Spock, M.D., and Michael B. Rothenberg, M.D., Baby and
Child Care (New York: Pocket
Books, 1985), p. 38.
46 pp. 47-48.
47 Gerzon, 012. cit., p. 237.
48 The archetypal male hero in American Literature has
been frequently identified with freedom from
civilization, especially as represented by women and children. From
Natty Bumpo to Huck Finn to Sam Spade,
this hero is the man who got away. Indeed, it is this mythic
iteration of male juvenility and flight from
responsibility that poses a central cultural challenge to the
ideal of the good family man.
49 See Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History. 0, The
National Interest (16, Summer 1989), pp. 3-18.
50 William Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, Scene III.
51 Robert S. Weiss, Staying the Course: The Emotional and Social
Lives of Men Who Do Well at Work
(New York: Free Press, 1990), pps. 180-81.
52 See Gilmore, Op. cit., chapter 1, sim.
53 Ross A. Thompson, 'The Father's Case in Child Custody
Disputes: The Contributions of
Psychological Research,' in Lamb and Sagi (eds.), 012. cit., pp.
65, 71-72.
54 See Alice S. Ross "Gender and Parenthood,' American
Sociological Review (49, February 1984),
pp. 5-9.
55 . Children Bond to Mother and Father in Different
Ways,' The Brown University Child Behavior and
Development Letter (December 1990), p. 5.
56 Demos, Op cit., p. 46.
57 Weiss, Op cit., pp. 185-188.
58 1 am grateful to Barbara Whitehead for sharing this
story.
59 Ibid., p. 183.
60 Wallerstein, Op cit., p. 142.
61 Weiss, Op. cit., pp. 190-191.
62 Erik Erikson, Childhood an Society , 2nd edition (NY: W.
W. Norton, 1963), pp. 27-69.
63 First Corinthians, 16:13. I am grateful to
Lawrence Mead for suggesting this verse.
.
|
| 165.11 | 1992 MOTHERS AND FATHERS REACT DIFFERENTLY | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:53 | 54 |
|
1992 MOTHERS AND FATHERS REACT DIFFERENTLY
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
240 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: 612/625-1915
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
from 1992 Family Life Packet: December
MOTHERS AND FATHERS REACT DIFFERENTLY TO THE
YOUNG CHILD'S COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
Very young children (under 2 years old) use different
communication skills when talking with their mothers and fathers,
according to a recent study. In contrast to fathers, mothers
exert considerable effort: (a) to understand what the child is
saying and (b) to continue the dialogue.
When asking children to clarify what they said or meant,
fathers tend to make the request with an incomplete sentence
(e.g., "what?" or "huh?"). Mothers, in contrast, usually request
more information with a complete sentence and often ask several
questions to get their young children to say what they mean.
Fathers generally ask their child to clarify an utterance only
once and then let the matter drop.
Compared to mothers, fathers are twice as likely to ignore
the child's communication. After this breakdown in
communication, the child usually does not try again.
Researchers found that when a mother ignored her child's
attempts to continue the dialogue, the child "usually persisted
and continued to clarify her original utterance by adding more
information to elicit the parent's attention."
Based on the study's findings, fathers apparently do not
exert much effort to communicate at the child's level but rather
expect the child to adapt to the adult level of communication.
Is this bad? No, not really.
The father-child interaction style frequently requires young
children to make adjustments if they want to keep the parent's
attention. The child is forced to use communication patterns,
shared by the "general speech community."
In other words, the communication pattern between very young
children and their fathers presents challenges to the children
which helps prepare them for verbal exchanges with other, non-
family adults.
RLP
Source: Tomasello, M., Contiramsden, G., & Ewert, B. (1990).
Journal of Child Language, 17 (1), 115-130.
.
|
| 165.12 | 1992 OLDER BROTHER SWAYS DRUG BEHAVIORS IN YOUNGER BROTHER | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:54 | 67 |
|
1992 OLDER BROTHER SWAYS DRUG BEHAVIORS IN YOUNGER BROTHER
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
240 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: 612/625-1915
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
from Family Life Packet: Jan 1992
OLDER BROTHER SWAYS DRUG BEHAVIORS IN YOUNGER BROTHER
If you're an older sibling, you may indeed be your brother's
keeper. In particular, your personality and relationship with
your younger brother will influence whether he uses drugs as a
teenager, a recent study supported by the National Institute on
Drug Abuse suggests.
Behaviors and personality characteristics are often imitated
during youth, according to professionals. While many studies
have documented the considerable impact of parents as role models
and mediators of children's behaviors, little is known about the
leverage siblings exact on each other during adolescence,
especially in the area of substance abuse.
To determine the contributing effect, 278 white middle-class
male college students and their eldest brothers were surveyed to
examine the elder brother's personality, the relationship between
the two brothers, and the younger brother's personality
characteristics as factors that could help explain the use or
non-use of illicit drugs by the junior male. The researchers
also sought to determine in which ways elder brothers might serve
as "buffers" against risk factors in younger brothers.
The investigators found that the older sibling's personality
and his relationship with his younger brother had a profound
impact on the younger brother's personality, which in turn
affected his risk for using drugs in adolescence. When the elder
brother displayed risk-taking behaviors (e.g. using drugs or
frequent "wild partying"), such behaviors were also often found
in the younger brother. In contrast, when a younger brother
seemed headed toward illicit drug use by exhibiting impulsive or
deviant behavior, the risk was likely to be offset by the older
brother's lack of drug use, his affection, protection, and close
attachment to his younger brother. When a positive, nurturing
bond between the two brothers existed, the likelihood of risk-
taking or impulsive behavior, such as drug use, by the younger
brother was greatly lowered.
The results indicate that reducing drug risk factors in the
older sibling is likely to have the added benefit of decreasing
risks in the younger brother. The researchers note that the
findings further suggest that interventions should focus heavily
on the attachment relationship between the brothers as a likely
buffer against the younger brother's drug use.
The researchers, Judith Brook, David Brook and Martin
Whiteman, of the Department of Psychiatry at the New York Medical
College of Valhalla, published their findings in the November
1991 issue of the Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry.
SSM
_______________________
Source: Adapted from Jan Ehrman, in Headlines (Alcohol, Drug
Abuse and Mental Health Administration), January 1992.
.
|
| 165.13 | 1992 Research on Father Involvement | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:54 | 244 |
|
1992 Research on Father Involvement
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
240 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: 612/625-1915
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
=================================================================
Extension Home Economics
S P E C I A L I S T R E S E A R C H R E P O R T
Minnesota Extension Service
March, 1992
=================================================================
Editor: Ronald L. Pitzer, Extension Family Sociologist
RESEARCH ON FATHER INVOLVEMENT
There has been an upsurge of interest in fathering in recent
years, both on the part of fathers themselves, many of whom are
becoming increasingly involved with their children, and on the
part of social scientists, many of whom have begun to take a
closer look at the father's role, interactions, and effects on
his children. In the past few years, several books and research
articles on father's roles and relationships have appeared.
Selected portions of that research is reviewed below.
So far, much of what is known about fathers' effects on their
children comes, ironically, from studies of children without
fathers. Father-absence, especially in the earliest years, is
associated with many undesirable characteristics and behaviors of
both sons and daughters from childhood and on through adulthood.
A father's presence at home is, of course, no assurance that the
level of his involvement will be high. Where there is father-
presence there may still be low father-availability. And,
indeed, surveys show that the world over, fathers spend only a
small fraction of the time that mothers, even employed mothers,
spend on child care activities.
LaRossa has provided an important perspective regarding the
question of what is happening to American fathers. Vast social
and economic changes have taken place over the course of this
century and continue as we approach the 21st century. In the
wake of these changes, has fatherhood changed? According to
LaRossa, "Although the evidence is scant, it would appear that
the answer to this question is both yes and no. Yes, fatherhood
has changed, if one looks at the culture of fatherhood--the
norms, values, and beliefs surrounding men's parenting. No,
fatherhood has not changed (at least significantly), if one looks
at the conduct of fatherhood--what fathers do; how fathers behave
vis-a-vis their children." (1)
Support for this distinction between the culture and conduct of
fatherhood is provided by four somewhat recent studies, all
which asked men and women both whether they believed homemaking
and child care should be equally shared by husbands and wives
when both spouses were employed and whether such equal sharing
actually existed in their family. The data is summarized in the
following table.
Percent who
Percent who believe report equal
husbands and wives sharing in
should share family their
work equally family
Men Women
Harris Poll (1988) 67% 87% 14%
Hiller-Philliber (1989)
Housework 53% 55%
20%
Child care 80% 80%
Rubenstein (1990) 75% 85% < 30%
Googins (1985) 74% 13%
Additional support for and an interesting embellishment of this
distinction between the culture of fatherhood and the conduct of
fatherhood is provided by recent research. This research shows
that blue collar fathers have actually changed more in terms of
their involvement in homemaking and child care than have middle
class fathers (including professionals), when their wives are
employed away from home. However, the middle class (especially
professional) males' ideology or professed beliefs (in short,
their culture) is much more egalitarian than are those of the
blue collar males. At least part of the explanation for this
perhaps surprising finding is offered by Ferree. She argues
that, since it is not in men's personal self-interest to initiate
greater involvement in homemaking and child care, any changes
must be initiated by women. She further argues that if women are
to be empowered to initiate greater involvement of spouse (and
children) they must perceive themselves and be perceived by family
as sharing the breadwinner role. Such definition, she says, is
more prevalent in lower income families where the need for her
income is more apparent. In upper middle-class families, wives'
wage-work can still be viewed as a privilege rather than a
contribution. (2)
There are several additional explanations for the slow change in
men's involvement in homemaking and child care. Perhaps most
important is that both men and women have been explicitly and
implicitly socialized into the assumption that the domestic
domain is the woman's domain. They have come to take for granted
(meaning the assumption is not consciously examined) that the
bulk of housekeeping tasks, child care, and household
administration will be done by the wife/mother. One consequence
of this, according to research by Ferree and by Hood (3), is that
men are not aware of the inequity (they just don't see how much
time and effort their wives expend on the domestic functions).
Further, women tend to be reasonably satisfied most of the time
if they see their husbands doing "their fair share" (and their
perception of a man's "fair share" tends to be based on what they
saw their fathers doing). Most husbands today are doing more
than that, though it still is considerably less than what women
are doing.
Gary Trudeau in a 1987 Doonesbury cartoon provided an insightful
observation on why men generally feel satisfied and comfortable
with their involvement, despite its inequity. J.J. asked her
husband Rick: "I know you love Jeff (their young son) as much as
I do. So why don't you seem as torn up about not being able to
spend time with him?" Rick's response: "Well, it may be because
I'm spending a whole lot more time on family than my father did.
And you're spending less time than your mother did.
Consequently, you feel guilty while I naturally feel pretty proud
of myself." Trudeau is quite right about this generation of
fathers spending more time on family than their fathers did.
Yarrow (4), in her survey of 14,000 fathers, found that 81 percent
reported taking a bigger part in child care duties than did their
fathers; 68 percent said they spend more time with their children;
and 44 percent believe their children know them better as a person.
Another obstacle to men's involvement in homemaking and child
care is that many men work for companies that do not make it easy
to spend time with children and have a career simultaneously. A
survey by Catalyst, a New York-based research group of Fortune
500 companies of employer attitudes towards fathers taking leave
revealed that 63 percent of the respondents believed "no leave"
was reasonable. Nearly half the 114 companies that offered
unpaid leave to fathers said men shouldn't take off any time for
parenting responsibilities. Ninety percent of those companies
offering leaves to fathers called them "personal leave" and made
no attempt to inform employees that such leave was available to
new fathers. (5)
A final obstacle to fathers' increased involvement in
childrearing is mothers' ambivalence about that involvement. On
the one hand, they are tired and welcome help. On the other
hand, many women seem to have concern about (1) giving up their
domestic power, (2) sharing children's affection and attachment,
(3) the way their husbands do the domestic jobs. This point
deserves some elaboration.
Perhaps surprisingly, there is evidence to indicate that only a
minority of women seems to desire increased participation by
their husbands in child care, and that the rates are not
appreciably higher for employed than for non-employed mothers (6)
A study (7) examining why more fathers do not use paternal leave,
found that a substantial number of women did not encourage (and
even discouraged) their husbands taking paternal leave because
they did not want to risk the child's bonding with the father.
Multiple interpretations of these results are possible. Polat-
nik (8) has explicitly concluded that the home has been women's
dominion and many women are reluctant to relinquish or share
control over the only domain in which they have power. Others
have also postulated that women may fear that increased paternal
participation would involve a loss of domination in the family
arena and would bring about a dilution of exclusive mother-child
relationships. (9) Mothers' prospects for obtaining custody of
children following a divorce might also be jeopardized when
fathers have been more involved in child care and have
established close relationships to their children.
These concerns are understandable; mothers may not feel the same
sense of crucial importance to their children's development when
child-rearing is shared with another person with equal investment
and commitment. As long as motherhood remains a central aspect
of self-definition for many women and prospects for fulfillment
in the employment arena remain uncertain, many may fear the
abdication or partial abdication of responsibility for parental
care. Those who do so may experience guilt, ambivalence, or
regret.
Changes are occurring, fairly quickly and widely regarding the
culture of fatherhood; not so quickly in the conduct of
fatherhood. As James Levine, director of the Fatherhood Project
at the Families and Work Institute, has said: "Fatherhood is in
the midst of an evolution, not a revolution. We shouldn't be
discouraged by the accordingly glacial pace of change."
==============================
(1) LaRossa, Ralph. "Fatherhood and Social Change." Family
Relations. 37(4):451-457, October 1988
(2) Ferree, Myra Marx. "Negotiating Household Roles and
Responsibilities: Resistance, Conflict, and Change." Paper
presented at annual conference of the National Council on Family
Relations, Philadelphia, November, 1988.
(3) Ferree, op.cit. Hood, Jane C. "The provider's role: It's
meaning and measurement." Journal of Marriage and the Family,
48:349-359, 1986.
(4) Yarrow, Leah. "Fathers Speak Out." Parents, September 1985,
pp. 91-94ff.
(5) Select committee on Children, Youth and Families (U.S. House
of Representatives.) "Babies and Briefcases: Creating a Family-
Friendly Workplace for Fathers," June 11, 1991.
(6) Lamb, Michael, Joseph Pleck, and James Levine. "Effects of
Paternal Involvement on Fathers and Mothers." Pp. 67-83 in Robert
Lewis and Marvin Sussmann (eds). Men's Changing Roles in the
Family. New York: Haworth Press, 1986. Russell, Graeme and
associates. "Work/family policies: The changing role of fathers
and the presumption of shared responsibility for parenting,"
Australian Journal of Social Issues 23(4):249-267, 1988.
(7) Schwartz, Felice N. "Management of women and the new facts
of life," Harvard Business Review, January-February 1989, Pp. 65-
76.
(8) Polatnik, M. Rivka. "Why men don't rear children: A power
analysis." Pp. 21-40 in Joyce Trebalcot (ed). Mothering: Essays
in Feminist Theory, Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld, 1984.
(9) Levine, James A. "The Work/Family Dilemma Not Just for
Mothers Anymore." Presentation at St. Paul (MN) Technical
College, October 26, 1989.
.
|
| 165.14 | 1992 Role of Fathers in the Family | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:55 | 124 |
|
1992 Role of Fathers in the Family
Center for Early Education, University of Minnesota
226 Child Development, 51 E. River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612/624-5780
MN Children, Youth & Family Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone: 612/626-9582; EMAIL: [email protected]
from Early Report
Volume 20, Number 1 Fall, 1992
About Fathers
by Charles L. Smith, Jr.
The Prenatal Exposure to Drugs (PED) Program recently made a
commitment to expand its primary focus on young children and
mothers to include consideration of the role of fathers in the
family. Because none of the fathers of the children in the
program serves as the primary parent, our goal was to discover the
factors keeping these fathers from their significant others. We
wanted to explore such factors as drugs, unemployment, lack of
education, the system, or a lack of motivation and responsibility.
To learn about the fathers in the PED Program, I interviewed
seven men, asking questions about their perspectives of their role
as "father." All seven were chemically dependent; each had come
to a point when he had to go through drug treatment. They were
from dysfunctional families, some did drugs with family members,
and most of the men had been incarcerated for one reason or
another. Many never had their fathers in the home-their mothers
had total responsibility.
The interview questions were very difficult for these young men
to answer. Having no role models and few parenting skills, many
were in situations where the child's mother had total
responsibility. The men wanted to change that, but they had no idea
how to do it.
1. When asked what they know about young children, participants
felt they didn't know much about parenting, but felt
children needed love. They all said that children learn from
what they see. They were concerned about their children's
environment, but when drugs were their primary concern, their
children's safety, well-being, and environment lost
importance.
2. Regarding who should be responsible for protecting and
nurturing their children, each said both parents have
responsibility.
3. They saw the major role of parents as nurturing, protecting,
and making things better. One father responded, "Being
there." When I asked why they weren't there, they said
drugs made them do it. Many are currently going to parenting
classes.
4. They all want to accept the responsibility of being a father
and be the provider, protector, and teacher. At the time of
the mothers pregnancies, many used drug dealing as a means
to provide a lifestyle without considering consequences. They
claimed they gave love, but none of them accepted the
responsibility of building a solid foundation by changing
his lifestyle. None of these fathers are currently married.
5. When asked who assumes responsibility for nurturing,
protecting, and guiding, those still with the mother said
both did. Those not with the mothers said they both should be
but agreed the mother actually has total responsibility. For
most, these responses have been learned recently in
parenting classes, during which joint responsibility is
discussed.
6. When comparing the family structure when they were children
to that of their children's present family structure, many
said it was the same--no father present in the home. One
participant who has children in multiple relationships said,
"It's not nearly the same. I'm there for her (the baby),
and me and her mother are raising her. My two sons situation
is the same as mine when I was a kid. I'm giving time, but
not as much as I want."
7. With respect to how the service delivery system is helping
them to become better parents, the men felt the system
stifles them with rigid rules and regulations. Many felt they
received no assistance in developing or maintaining
relationships to keep their families together in a
self-sustaining fashion.
8. According to the fathers, drugs, greed, machoism, and the
system prevented them from establishing a family with the
children's mothers. Some had specific issues with women and
were mad at their mothers and sisters. Some had unstable
relationships with the children's mothers.
9. As a final question, the fathers were asked what they could
do at this time to bring them together with the mothers. The
answers varied widely. Some said parenting groups and
family counseling could help. One said he no longer had a
relationship with the mother, and any attempt would be a
waste of time. One participant attempting to make a
relationship work responded by stating, "Understanding that
everyday will not be a good day. Being patient and not
expecting things to always go my way." and "Marriage."
This group of men feels ill-equipped to fulfill the role of
father, having had poor role models growing up. The pressures of
day-to-day life, including exposure to the drug culture,
interfere with establishing a strong family base. The interactions
the fathers have with their children do not encompass all of the
responsibilities of parents. The fathers role is often unreal
and becomes self-serving. They visit, bring gifts, and play.
Mothers are responsible for discipline and establishing
regulations.
This, in turn, leads to disagreements between the mothers and
fathers and disintegration of the family structure. Finally, these
fathers felt the service delivery system was rigid and controlling
and lacked adequate focus on long-term maintenance of family
relationships.
.
|
| 165.15 | 1992 TIPS FOR BUILDING CHILDREN'S SELF-ESTEEM | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:55 | 91 |
|
1992 TIPS FOR BUILDING CHILDREN'S SELF-ESTEEM
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
240 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: 612/625-1915
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
from 1992 Family Life Packet: December
TIPS FOR BUILDING CHILDREN'S SELF-ESTEEM
How can parents and professionals help ensure that children
will be responsible for their education, leisure time use and
overall well-being? Dr. Robert B. Brooks, assistant professor of
psychology at Harvard Medical School, believes that adults can
help by fostering children's self-esteem. And he says that
children will have greater self-esteem if they feel a sense of
ownership and responsibility for their experiences.
Many children don't have that feeling. "They think in terms
of 'I have to go there. I have to do this, I have to do
homework.'" It is important to their success and self-esteem
that they feel they have a personal, vested interest in their
activities. He offers three tips for fostering self-esteem.
1. Freedom to Make Mistakes
One roadblock to feeling vested is not having the freedom to
make mistakes. Brooks wishes that adults would admit that they
make mistakes and talk about the nature of making mistakes -- the
fear, the intimidation and what it does to people. He says it is
a fear that interferes with emotional development and with trying
new things.
Brooks recommends that adults ask children what they think
are appropriate actions to take when people make a mistake. "Ask
them, should we insult them and make fun of them?" Chances are
children will answer no. An open discussion of their fears can
serve to teach children that mistakes are normal and are part of
learning.
Children with good self-esteem seem to believe that mistakes
are experiences to learn from rather than be defeated by, he
notes. Children who do not perceive mistakes that way feel
helpless, Brooks says. Thus, their mistakes really do turn out
badly. "They become class clowns, class bullies, they retreat,
they use drugs, they become self-destructive. . . It's learned
helplessness -- that feeling that regardless of what I do, I
cannot bring about positive change."
2. Making a Contribution
Self-esteem stems from feeling valued. "Many children and
adolescents are drowning in an ocean of inadequacy. They feel
they are not competent," Brooks says. "I believe every child in
the world has at least one small island of competency, one area
which can serve as a source of pride." Finding that island of
competency and offering ways for children to contribute can help
them build self-esteem. "The feeling that you are contributing
is very powerful," he says.
Brooks tells about a little boy who sat in the bushes every
day and refused to go into the school. The boy said he liked
bushes better than he liked school. Says Brooks, "I had a choice
of either getting into a debate about the relative merits of
bushes versus school, or I could find his island of competence,
so I asked what he enjoyed doing."
The boy said that he really liked caring for his pet dog.
Soon the school principal invited the child to care for the
school's pet rabbit. "This kid who thought he had nothing to
contribute wrote a manual on taking care of pets," says Brooks.
"By the end of the school year this kid had lectured to every
class in school, and he told me the bushes were not exciting any
more."
3. Giving a Choice
A third strategy for fostering self-esteem is giving
choices. "Anything can be a choice," Brooks points out.
"Anything can be a decision. I read one article that said if you
give kids a choice of writing in blue ink or black ink they'll
write more than if you just tell them to write."
Children surely will not develop a sense of ownership and
responsibility if other people always decide what children will
do and when and how they'll do it. Real choices, appropriate to
children's ages, also permit them to experiment, make mistakes
and learn in nonthreatening situations.
RLP
Source: Adapted from the Brown University Child Behavior and
Development Letter, 1991.
.
|
| 165.16 | 1992 WHO'S SUPPORTING THE CHILDREN? | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:56 | 70 |
|
1992 WHO'S SUPPORTING THE CHILDREN?
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
240 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: 612/625-1915*C
MN Children Youth & Family Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone: 612/626-9582; EMAIL: [email protected].
from Family Life Packet: February 1992
WHO'S SUPPORTING THE CHILDREN?
By spring 1990, 10 million women aged 15 and over maintained
families with children under age 21 whose fathers were absent
from the home. About 5.7 million had been awarded child support,
leaving a large number without support from the children's
father. About 3.2 million of these families (1 in 3) lived in
poverty.
What are the characteristics of the women receiving child
support payments?
One-half of women due support actually received full amount.
The remainder were about evenly split between those receiving a
portion of what they were due and those who received nothing.
Mothers with child support awards had a significantly lower
poverty rate that those without awards (24 versus 43 percent).
Also, never-married mothers with children from an absent father
had a poverty rate of 54 percent, compared with 23 percent for
those who had been married before.
Support varies by marital history, education, and race and
Hispanic origin. Women who have been married before were three
times as likely to be awarded child support as those who have
never been married (72 versus 24 percent). While 68 percent of
White women were awarded child support, only 35 percent of Black
women received such awards. The award rate for Hispanic-origin
women was 41 percent. The award rate rises with the mother's
educational level, from 37 percent (no high school diploma) to 75
percent (4 or more years of college).
Fathers have visitation privileges in over half the cases;
another 7 percent had joint custody with the mother. The
remaining 38 percent had neither. Having joint custody, or at
least visitation privileges, made it more likely for absent
fathers to make the child support payments they owed.
Absent fathers usually (64 percent) live in the same State
as their children. Proximity seemed to increase the chances of
payment; 81 percent of absent fathers living in the same State
who were supposed to pay did so, compared with 66 percent living
in another State, and 47 percent living either abroad or at an
unknown address.
Fewer than half of women are awarded health care benefits.
About one-third of fathers required to provide health insurance
benefits as part of the award, though, did not do so. On the
other hand, some fathers (7 percent) not required to provide
health insurance did so anyway.
Close to 1 in 3 sought government help in obtaining child
support. About 1 million women received aid in finding the
father, establishing paternity, or establishing support
obligations. About the same number got help in enforcing the
support order or obtaining collection. The reminder tried to get
help, but did not.
SSM
_________________________
Source: Adapted from Bureau of the Census Statistical Brief,
SB/91-18, October 1991.
.
|
| 165.17 | DADS MAKE A DIFFERENCE: FOCUS GROUP RESULTS SUMMARY | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:57 | 180 |
|
DADS MAKE A DIFFERENCE: FOCUS GROUP RESULTS SUMMARY
Children Youth and Family consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and CYFCEC receive acknowledgment and this notice is included. Phone: (612) 626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
The "Dads Make a Difference" project is a collaborative effort of
Children's Defense Fund - MN; Family Tree Clinic; Minnesota
Extension Service, Ramsey County; and the Ramsey County Attorney's
Office, Child Support and Collections. Its purpose is to develop
educational materials to teach young people about the importance
of fathers in children's lives and the legal, financial, and
emotional responsibilities of parenting It is funded for one year
by a Ramsey County Innovations Grant. Focus groups were conducted
to learn what youth know about paternity issues, to assess their
attitudes about fathers, and to understand the best way to reach
youth with this information. The sessions revealed the opinions of
teens at one point in middle adolescent development.
STUDY DESCRIPTION
The focus group participants were fifty-five ninth and tenth grade
students who participated in eight sessions, four with boys, four
with girls. The youth represented a diversity of ethnic origin and
family structure. Fourteen percent of the youth were parents.
STUDY FINDINGS
Images and Roles of Dads
There were both positive and negative images and personal
experiences of dads. A significant number of youth reported
instances of violence and abuse by their fathers or fathers of
friends. Youth who did not have a father present in their lives
revealed anger and hurt. Stereotypes about images and roles still
exist among both boys and girls. There was almost no reporting of
a "nurturing" role for dads. Youth with positive experiences cited
"being there" as the nearest reality to a "nurturing father." The
prime role for dads was disciplinarian. Most youth felt their dads
enforced the rules and were stricter than their moms. The role of
provider was mentioned, but youth understood that this role is not
exclusive to dads anymore. Both sexes felt dads played a stronger
role model function for boys than girls. Boys said they would turn
to dad before mom on sexual issues. Girls saw dads as their
"protector," especially from boyfriends, but reported sometimes
dads were over-protective. There still is a double standard on the
part of dads toward their sons and daughters.
Knowledge about Paternity
Except for youth who had experience with the system, teens
demonstrated very little understanding of how an unmarried man
becomes a legal dad. There was some general knowledge about
signing papers and blood tests. Some felt you just are the
father. Others felt signing papers was not as important as being
there to prove you are the father. Only one group used the word
"paternity. "
Advantages/Disadvantages of Establishing Paternity
Advantages the youth named were: 1) the ability to spend time with
their child, 2) the opportunity to have a say in raising the
child, 3) the experience of being loved by their child and 4) the
challenge of learning responsibility. The top disadvantage was
paying child support. Two other disadvantages were loss of free
time with your friends and increased responsibility. Some youth
recognized that what was an advantage to someone could be a
disadvantage for someone else. One boy said it all depends on
whether the dad "loves" the child.
Pressures to be/not be a father
The teens reported that guys feel strong pressure to have sex. It
is the "cool" thing to do, and not doing it leaves one ripe for
ridicule and being labeled a "chicken" or a "punk." One boy said,
"You have more pressure about having sex than to be a father."
Boys said having sex is cool, but talking about being a father is
not. Youth do not see a connection between having sex and becoming
a father. The youth discussed the messages in the media that
entice youth to have sex and not get caught. Some youth did relate
an increase in peer and parental "pressure" to use condoms and be
sexually responsible. Other pressures "to be" a dad were: families
wanting grandchildren, the female partner wanting a baby, and the
chance to leave one's mark on the world. A major pressure on guys
"not to be" a father is their "homies" or male friends who want
them to run with them rather than to be with the mom and child. A
fear of the increased responsibility of fathering, including
financial duties, pressures guys to run and not be involved.
Pressures on Mom
The key reason dad would be left out of the picture was if he was
abusive. Many girls report a lot of hurt and bitterness toward
abusive or neglectful dads. Graphic incidents of violence by
fathers were reported. Often the shattered relationship between
the father and the mother keeps children from knowing their dad.
Mom will keep him out or influence the child not to want to know
him. However, the need for both financial and emotional support in
raising the child often influences the mother to challenge the dad
to help out, even if they are not "close. "
The importance of dads
Boys agreed that dads were important because they need the male
perspective. Girls were divided. Many didn't think dads were as
important. They either had a poor experience with a dad who was
present or lived with mom alone. They acknowledged that dads might
be more important for boys than girls. Other girls argued that
dads are very important because two parents are better. Some girls
felt dads were important to them as a "measuring stick" for
relating to boys. Girls admitted that they learn a lot about male-
female relationships from the first hand experience of their mom
and dad. If that relationship is filled with discord and even
violence, it dims their own prospects for healthy relationships.
Dads are valued by some girls for their strength in providing
security and discipline.
How to best deliver information
Youth clearly identified the "cross-age" teaching model as the
preferred method. They feel slightly older teens, especially ones
with the experience of parenting, would make an impact on younger
teens. They told us middle school youth look up to high school
students and would listen to them more than an adult who might
come across as an authority figure. Educational tools the youth
like are: videos (if short, music-oriented, and with real kids in
them); plays or skits by teens on teen situations; small group
discussions; and wallet cards with basic factual information.
Youth told us not to use: comic books, posters and brochures.
Best age for this information
The youth feel ages l2 - l4, middle school age, is vital because a
lot of kids are beginning dating and becoming sexually active.
They suggest it be taught before high school but not so early that
they wouldn't take it seriously.
STUDY THEMES
Youth still live by a lot of gender role stereotypes, such as:
males are tough and shouldn't cry; dads are enforcers more than
moms; dads are better helpers with homework.
Teens report very little nurturing behavior by their dads such as
saying "I love you" or hugging.
Youth want their dads to play a more active role in their lives
but not be over-protective. Above all they want their dads to
listen to them and get to know them better. Girls want dads to
treat daughters and sons equally.
Basic knowledge of the legal paternity establishment process is
needed by teens.
Sex is a big issue in kids' lives; yet, there are not a lot of
forums for healthy discussion in a straightforward, safe, and
trusting environment. Youth welcomed the chance to talk about all
of these parenting and relationship issues. They don't believe
that "just say no" about sex works and they believe there should
be more emphasis on and more information about protection and
birth control. They suggest that parenting should be taught in the
schools to both genders.
Teens prefer talking about these issues with real people who have
experience and to whom they can relate and ask honest questions.
They suggest not waiting until high school to talk about
parenting, because kids are having sex earlier.
"Gender wars" are still alive. There are a lot of unresolved
male/female relationship issues in the lives of teenagers and
their families. Problems between moms and dads make it harder for
youth to learn how to relate with the opposite sex.
Family violence and physical abuse by dads are prevalent and
impact a child's attitudes toward dads and future male/female
relationships. Youth sometimes don't know where to turn for help
when abuse occurs in their own family or when friends share
stories of abuse with them.
While recognizing the benefits of having two parents some girls
raised only by their mothers think that they are doing just fine.
There are some clear cultural differences in experiences of
father-absence and in the roles fathers play. Youth of color
report that some people assume there is no father living with
their family.
Young people understand that paying child support and other
parental responsibilities are disincentives to staying involved as
a young father.
Teens admit that too-early parenting is hard, makes you grow up
too fast, and robs you of the fun and freedom of youth.
Youth felt young children have a right to know their dad even if
the mom didn't want them to know him.
Despite the pressures and the challenges, teens have a glimpse of
what should be. It can be expressed by a quote from the movie,
Boyz N the Hood, "Any fool can have a baby, but it takes a
real man to keep a child and raise him."
Special thanks is given to the 55 teens from throughout Ramsey
County who shared their views.
We are grateful to Kathy Brothen, Family Tree Clinic; Dwaine
Simms, MELD; and Christa Anders, Minnesota Department of Human
Service, for their help in moderating the focus groups.
Report prepared by Gary Greenfield, Project Coordinator, Dec. 1993
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To obtain a detailed report of the "Dads Make a Difference" focus
group study, contact:
Gary Greenfield, Project Coordinator 2020 White Bear Avenue St.
Paul, MN 55109 PH: (612)777-2869 FAX: (612) 777-0959
.
|
| 165.18 | 1993 Parental Attitudes On Punishment as Discipline | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:57 | 216 |
|
1993 Parental Attitudes On Punishment as Discipline
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
240 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55108
612-625-1915
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
=================================================================
Extension Home Economics
S P E C I A L I S T R E S E A R C H R E P O R T
Minnesota Extension Service
=================================================================
Ronald L. Pitzer, Extension Family Sociologist
June, 1993
PARENTAL ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS REGARDING PUNISHMENT AS A MEANS OF
CHILD DISCIPLINE
There is a popular conception in America that most people use
only love and permissiveness in rearing children. Some outspoken
speakers say that "permissiveness" has caused all sorts of
irresponsibility and crime in this nation. The fact is that high
proportions of parents believe in physical punishment and use
force or the threat of force as the major approach to child
rearing. Slapping, spanking, and paddling children for purposes
of discipline are accepted, pervasive, adult behaviors in U.S.
families. Although anger, physical attack, and pain are involved
between two people of vastly different size, weight, and
strength, such behavior is commonly accepted as a proper exercise
of adult authority over children. (Gelles, 1978; Straus, 1990;
Straus and Gelles, 1990; Graziano and Namaste, 1990). Physical
force toward children tends to be accepted or even encouraged in
subtle, and at times not so subtle, ways by parents and other
family members; by some "professional experts" in child rearing,
education, and medicine; by the press, radio, and television; and
by some professional and popular publications.
Indeed, according to Wauchope and Straus (1990), there is a
normative expectation in American society that parents will use
physical punishment with their children. In their words: "Both
the legal and the informal norms of the United States give
parents the right to use physical violence in controlling and
training children. Parents are expected or obligated to use
physical punishment "when necessary". The existence of this
normative expectation to use physical punishment is rarely
perceived until it is called into question by a parent who fails
to conform. Carson (1986) found that 80-90 percent of the
population considers parents to have not just the right, but the
moral obligation, to spank or slap. Non-spanking parents tend to
be the objects of social control efforts by friends and relatives
in the form of polite but pointedly expressed doubts about
consequences for the child. Carson found that non-spanking
parents, like other "deviants," tend to develop socially
acceptable accounts to justify their unwillingness to use
physical punishment to themselves and others.
A 1988 Harris Poll and a 1989 Gallup Poll report that 86 percent
of adults agree that parents have the right to "hit, spank, or
physically discipline children." Fewer than half (44 percent)
think teachers have that right. Men more strongly supported the
notion of hitting or spanking a child than did women.
Ironically, but not really surprisingly, women more often carried
out spanking (because they are more frequently there and carry a
larger share of the nurturing and disciplining load). Ninety
percent of the parents in the 1975 National Family Violence
Survey expressed at least some degree of approval of physical
punishment (Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz, 1980). A 1986 NORC
national survey found that 84 percent of parents agreed or
strongly agreed that "It is sometimes necessary to discipline a
child with a good hard spanking." (Straus, 1989) When asked
whether they agreed or disagreed that, "Spanking helps children
to be better people when they grow up," over one-third (35
percent) of parents responding to a recent survey agreed, nearly
half said it "doesn't matter," and 17 percent disagreed. (Moore
and Straus, 1987)
Data from 2191 low-income parents of infants and young children
in five states (California, Delaware, Nevada, South Carolina, and
Utah) show that 41 percent agree that parents should use physical
punishment to teach children right from wrong (Dickinson, 1990;
Cudaback, 1992).
According to Moore and Straus (1987), this approval does not
apply only to small children. Their New Hampshire Child Abuse
Survey found that less than half of the parents interviewed (47%)
strongly disagreed with the statement, "Parents have a right to
slap their teenage children who talk back to them." In another
study by Dibble and Straus (1980), 82 percent of parents
expressed at least some degree of approval of slapping or
spanking a 12-year-old. There was virtually no difference in
approval of spanking or slapping a 12-year-old between whites (81
percent) and blacks (83 percent). A somewhat higher proportion
of whites than of blacks reported actually spanking or slapping
their 12-year-old youngster during the past year (59 percent vs.
51 percent) (Cazenave and Straus, 1979).
There is reason to be concerned about parental attitudes about
physical punishment, as there is evidence that, regarding this
matter, attitudes direct behavior. Studies show, for example,
that parents who approved of physical punishment actually did use
physical force about four times more often than those who did not
approve. In addition, those parents who approved physical
punishment were much more likely than nonbelieving parents to go
beyond ordinary physical punishment and assault children in ways
more likely to injure them -- kicking, biting, punching, and
hitting with objects more frequently (Straus, 1989). A recent
study by Simons and Associates (1993) also found that parents who
believed in "punitive strategies" were more likely to use harsh
discipline and less likely to use supportive (nurturant)
parenting.
Research tends to indicate that while high proportions of the
public believe parents have the right (or even the duty) to use
spanking or other forms of physical punishment to guide and
control children's behavior, many of these same parents have
reservations about its effectiveness and consequences. For
example, according to the annual National Public Opinion survey
recently released by the National Committee for Prevention of
Child Abuse, 72 percent of the American public believes that
physical discipline of a child can lead to injury (Cohn, 1990).
University of New Hampshire researcher Barbara Carson (1989)
found that 40 percent of parents who regularly spanked their
children thought spanking was rarely, if ever, effective. One
out of three felt guilty and blamed themselves after spanking a
child. Her findings contradict the traditional assumption that
parents spank their children because they think it's an effective
way of changing a child's behavior. In Carson's study, parents
reported that their own fatigue, frustration or bad mood often
had more to do with whether a child got spanked than did the
child's behavior.
Another study found that the more parents used physical
punishment, the greater the percentage who worried that they
might get carried away to the point of child abuse (Frude & Goss,
1979).
The study referred to above (Dickinson, 1990; Cudaback, 1992) of
over 2000 low-income mothers of young children in five states
found these mothers did not believe that spanking was very
effective in teaching children "good behavior" or teaching
children "not to hit," even though they frequently spanked with
these very intentions in mind. Specifically:
"Children are more likely to learn good
behavior when spanked." 24 percent of total
sample of low-income mothers agreed; 19
percent of California Hispanic mothers
agreed.
"A good way to teach a child not to hit is to
hit him/her." 15 percent of total sample of
low-income mothers agreed; 13 percent of
California Hispanic mothers agreed.
Dickinson (1990) and Cudaback (1992) compared low-income mothers
who agreed with the above two statements and the statement on the
preceding page ("believers" in physical punishment) with mothers
who disagreed with all three statements ("non-believers" in
physical punishment). Of the total sample, 16 percent of women
agreed with all three statements (were "believers"). Attitudes
toward physical punishment were significantly related to
education and race. As education of respondents increased,
beliefs in physical punishment significantly decreased. Forty-
two percent of black respondents agreed with all three physical
discipline statements compared to 9 percent of Hispanic women,
and 9 percent of white, non-Hispanic women. Women with children
in Headstart were significantly more likely to report belief in
physical punishment (27 percent) than were those who did not
have children in Headstart. Compared to "non-believers," those
who strongly believed in physical punishment reported using
significantly fewer sources of parenting information (such as
magazines, doctors and other professionals, classes, books).
Those who believed in physical punishment also expressed
significantly less desire for information about discipline.
There were no significant relationships between attitudes toward
physical punishment and receipt of financial assistance, living
arrangement, or marital status, nor were there significant
differences between teen mothers and older mothers.
The source in one's own childhood of one's inclinations toward
the use of physical punishment is indicated by Straus' finding
that the more physical punishment a parent experienced as a
child, the higher the proportion who engaged in abusive violence
toward their own children and spouses (Straus, 1990). Another
interesting study by Herzberger and Tennen (1985) found that
young adults who reported having experienced a particular
disciplinary method (for example, spanking) were more supportive
of the use of that method than were those who did not remember
having experienced it. In answer to the question of why the
opposite effect does not occur (empathy for those sharing a
similar plight), the investigators posit that empathy does not
result merely from exposure to a particular treatment. Spanking,
slapping, or other physical punishment, unless accompanied by
explicit processing of its impact on others, does not help the
child recognize the consequences of the action for others. When
disciplined for misbehavior by spanking or other forms of
physical (or verbal) hurt, children focus on their own pain
rather than on the effect of their behavior on others. Physical
punishment not only provides a model of aggression, but fails to
encourage the child to consider the implications of aggression
from another viewpoint.
(Reference list available upon request from Ron Pitzer, Rural
Sociology, 92 COB, U of MN, St. Paul MN 55108; (612) 625-8169)
.
|
| 165.19 | 1993 WHEN DAY CARE MEANS DAD CARE: MORE MEN ARE CAREGIVERS | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:58 | 51 |
|
1993 WHEN DAY CARE MEANS DAD CARE: MORE MEN ARE CAREGIVERS
DAILY REPORT CARD
--- Wednesday --- September 22, 1993 --- Vol. 3 --- No. 80 ---
| (c) 1993 by the American Political Network, Inc. |
| 282 N. Washington St., Falls Church, VA (703) 237-5130 |
| APN, Inc. hereby authorizes further reproduction and |
| distribution with proper acknowledgement. |
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
WHEN DAY CARE MEANS DAD CARE: MORE MEN ARE CAREGIVERS
Fathers were the primary caregivers in 1991 for one in five
pre-school age children, according to a report by the Washington-
based Population Reference Bureau (multi). The share was one in
seven just three years earlier, reports the WASH. TIMES (AP).
Only baby sitters outnumbered fathers as primary-care givers
in household where mothers worked. Dads were ahead of day-care
centers, preschools and grandparents, reports the PHILA. INQUIRER
(Belluck/Borowski).
Martin O'Connell, the study's author, ascribes the increase
in father care to rising unemployment, high-cost day care and "a
growing number of parents who work night shifts, or part-time."
(Chira, N.Y. TIMES). But another factor he points to is changing
social attitudes. "We're legitimizing the idea of men as
caregivers," said James Levine, of The Fatherhood Project in N.Y.
"There's still a stigma attached, but the message is getting out
that it's OK," he added.
O'Connell maintains that the trend toward father care will
not disappear as the economy improves. He cites several factors
that encourage fathers' role in children's upbringing: the
Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides up to 12 weeks'
unpaid leave after childbirth or adoption; the continuing growth
of the service sector, which currently employs a significant
number of women; and the skyrocketing cost of child care.
The study also found that 56% of preschoolers whose fathers
were unemployed for long periods were cared for by fathers;
children whose fathers worked evening shifts were almost twice as
likely as those with day-shift dads to be cared for by their
fathers; and the role of dads in child care declines as children
grown older, reports USA TODAY (Ritter). And married fathers
cared for 23% of children while their wives worked, which is a 5%
increase from 1988, reports the TIMES. The paper also reports
from the study an increase in unmarried fathers who cared for
their children, from 1.5% in 1988 to 7% in 1991.
.
|
| 165.20 | 1993 WHERE HAVE ALL THE FAMILIES GONE? GROWING UP BLACK | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 15:02 | 91 |
|
1993 WHERE HAVE ALL THE FAMILIES GONE? GROWING UP BLACK
DAILY REPORT CARD
--- Wednesday --- August 25, 1993 --- Vol. 3 --- No. 61 ---
| (c) 1993 by the American Political Network, Inc. |
| 282 N. Washington St., Falls Church, VA (703) 237-5130 |
| APN, Inc. hereby authorizes further reproduction and |
| distribution with proper acknowledgement. |
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
WHERE HAVE ALL THE FAMILIES GONE? GROWING UP BLACK
An African-American child has only a one-in-five chance of
growing up with two parents, according to NEWSWEEK's special
report on the "Endangered Family." (Ingrassia) And Yale U's
James Comer said that single-parent homes represent "the
education crisis that is going to kill us." He added that
academic competition with European and Asian students will not
destroy America, rather what "will kill us is the large number of
bright kids who fall out of the mainstream because their families
are not functioning."
Single-parent homes are not solely the bane of low-income
communities. NEWSWEEK reports that out-of-wedlock births "cut
across economic lines." The newsmag writes: "Among the poor, a
staggering 65 percent of never-married black women have children,
double the number for whites. But even among the well-to-do, the
differences are striking: 22 percent of never-married black
women with incomes above $75,000 have children, almost 10 times
as many as white." And the cry from some black women is: "Where
are the men?" reports the magazine.
NEWSWEEK links fading family ties with the economic
dislocations that began in the early 1970s, "when the nation
shifted from an industrial to a service base." Black men, who
had migrated north for manufacturing jobs, were hit much harder
than white men by the deindustrialization of America, according
to the magazine. "When men lose their ability to earn bread,
their sense of self declines dramatically," said U-Okla.
historian Robert Griswold, author of "Fatherhood in America."
Griswold: "They lose rapport with their children."
Others lay much of the blame on the breakdown of family
values. But U-Chicago sociologist William Julius Wilson argues
in "The Declining Significance of Race," that the dissolution of
black families "resulted from rising unemployment, not falling
values," writes NEWSWEEK. Nicholas Lemann, author of "The
Promised Land:" "We're never going to get to where we need to be
if we first have to settle whose fault it is."
The newsmag says the African-American community is more
willing to talk openly about its problems since a Democrat
entered the White House. "I'd like to think we've entered an era
where we're willing to accept that there is a dual
responsibility" between government and individuals, according to
the Children Defense Fund's Angela Glover Blackwell.
NEWSWEEK writes that in addition to economic hardships, the
sexual revolution was "the second great shift that changed the
black family." While white women delayed both marriage and
childbearing, "confident that, down the road, there would be a
pool of marriageable men," black women postponed marriage but not
children because of the uncertainty that there would be eligible
men.
Solutions to the situation mirror 1960s' proposals of better
education, more jobs, discouraging teen pregnancy and more
mentoring programs, writes NEWSWEEK. The newsmag asks: "But now
the question is, who should deliver -- government or blacks
themselves?" (8/30)
THE CONDITION OF THE BLACK FAMILY: NEWSWEEK POLL
Forty-one percent of respondents to a recent NEWSWEEK poll
said blacks can do the most to improve the situation of black
families, compared with 14% who named government, 14% community
organizations and 25% churches.
Other findings: 81% of black Americans agreed that teen-age
pregnancy is a very significant problem facing black families,
second only to drug and alcohol abuse (86%); 53% said that a key
reason teenage girls get pregnant is that they do not understand
sex or birth control and 48% said the high rate of teen pregnancy
is due to teen who will not use birth control or refuse abortions
for personal or religious reasons.
Violence is the greatest worry of many black parents -- 55%
of those polled with a son in an intact family said they worry "a
lot" that he will be a crime victim. And the figure jumped to
79% of single parents polled who are raising a son.
Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 600 black
adults from Aug. 12-15 for the survey. The poll has a margin of
error of +/- 5 percentage points (8/30).
.
|
| 165.22 | 1994 Future of Fatherhood | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 15:04 | 178 |
|
1994 Future of Fatherhood
A Guiding Image
Glen Palm- Family Information Services-August, 1994
The following article is made available by Family Information
Service. Family Information Service provides information on
parenting and fathering. They can be reached at (800) 852-8112
or (612) 755-6233, FAX (612) 755-7355.
MN Children Youth and Family Consortium Electronic
Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author,
Family Information Services and MN CYFCEC receive
acknowledgment and this notice is included. Prior permission
of the author is required to create and distribute a derivative
work. Phone (612) 626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
I recently attended the Family Re-Union III conference in
Nashville, TN. The focus of this conference organized by Vice-
President Gore was the "Role of Men in Children's Lives". The
Rev. Jesse Jackson in his keynote address reminded the audience
that "trends are not destiny". He called for a renewed moral
commitment of men to care for children. As a student of future
studies, I learned that our future depends more on our ability
to create positive images than to manage or adapt to negative
trends. The creation of positive images guides us towards a
better future. The current state of fatherhood reveals a
number of positive and negative images. In my own work with
fathers over the last 15 years, I have found my own future
images of fatherhood becoming more inclusive and at the same
time more vague. Descriptions of fathers today reflect some
of our confusion as we talk about the absent father, the
abusive father, deadbeat dad, the reluctant father, co-parent,
gay father, step- father, house-husband, single fathers, the
new involved father. The dichotomy between the good father
and bad father and related trends was outlined by Furstenburg
(1988). At the same time that there appears to be an increase
in the number of involved fathers, more children are facing
periods of "fatherlessness". This bifurcation of a fatherhood
and the increasing sensitivity to diverse family settings make
it difficult to project a clear positive image to guide the
conduct of fatherhood. This essay will focus on the basic
ingredients of a new image-a cultural image we can "reach
for". Positive images provide clarity, hope, and moral
direction. The purpose here is to bring together common
elements of the "good father" image that can guide men towards
a more caring relationship
with children.
The Family Re-Union III conference brought together many
different people who work with fathers. While there was
considerable debate about the meaning of fatherhood, I also
discerned some key elements of fatherhood that appear to be
"common ground" beyond ideology, family context, and race.
There appear to be three key elements that were themes repeated
many times during the conference discussions.
1) Responsibility -Men are responsible for the children they
help bring into the world. They are responsible for physical
support and emotional support. Beyond the family level of
support, men have a responsibility to all children in their
community. Men need assistance and support in taking on this
responsibility for children.
2) Caring -Men as caregivers have the opportunity to develop a
nurturant relationship with children. This ethic of caring
involves understanding children, expressing warmth and
affection and guiding children through growth and development
to maturity. Fathers care deeply about their children, but
may need assistance in finding ways to express this care to
support children's growth and development as individuals.
3) Leadership -Fathers have to take on a joint leadership role
in families, not the authoritarian patriarch, but the co-parent
who shares child-rearing responsibilities. Leadership in
child-rearing also involves moral leadership -modeling the
behaviors one expects from children. Men have to move beyond
the provider role, to community leadership where they take on a
greater responsibility for all children.
The family structure provides a context for this positive image
of father and while the structure may vary the key elements
remain constant. There was a great deal of discussion about
the critical role and even goal of marriage for the conduct of
fatherhood at the Family Forum III conference. The common
ground emerging from this discussion was that fathers (and
mothers) must develop the relationship skills to co-parent
within a variety of family structures-including never-married,
married, divorced, and remarried families. The implication
here is that the father-child connection is seen as indelible,
not an accident to be erased and forgotten. This image
provides an ideal to "reach for" and develop as a cultural
norm. Questions about gender politics will need to be
addressed as this norm is established and implemented. While
the focus here is on "biological fatherhood", there must be a
more inclusive caring connection of men to children not just
in families but in communities.
This positive image of fatherhood appears to circumvent
cultural differences. There may be variations in how men
express caring, leadership, and responsibility as fathers but
the basic elements can be embraced by many if not all cultural
groups in our society. I was struck by the similarity of
issues that face both young African American fathers and older
white fathers as they struggle with new ideas about
fatherhood and masculinity.
In summary, the image raises our standards for men in our
culture with real implications for their behavior in
relationship to women and children. It is an attempt to bring
together some of the strengths of the traditional male provider
role and the new nurturant father role. The details of
responsibility, caring and leadership of men for children must
be negotiated with women in the family context and the
community context. This image is not a call for men to
reassert "male power" in the family and community. It is a
challenge to men to strive for genuine caring relationships
with children as a primary characteristic of a mature man. It
is also a challenge to men and women to develop the
relationship skills to co-parent children within a variety of
family settings.
Implications for practice
As family practitioners this image of fatherhood should affirm
our work. For some family educators it may mean a subtle shift
in thinking about families. For example, we tend to discount
the importance and relevance of male involvement when we talk
about single parent families headed by females. Males become
invisible, unimportant, irresponsible, non-essential and
perhaps detrimental to families and their children. This new
image suggests that we take a closer look at all families and
begin to think about how to include men in all family services.
This inclusion will not be as simple as inviting men to
existing "parenting programs". In many cases it may be
necessary to reach men through separate supplemental
programming (i.e., a Saturday program for fathers and kids or
through special family events). Including fathers and
designing programs for males also means that we must understand
how our programs currently serve mothers and not compromise or
water down effective services to single mothers by including
males. Our programs also will have to focus more on the co-
parent relationship and the skills needed to navigate this
relationship. These changes would involve thinking about
families as complex systems and adapting our services to fit
the realities of family life.
The Family Forum III conference and the pre-session on Male Re-
engagement in Families gave me a sense of clarity about the
future directions we must take to support male involvement in
families. There have been few opportunities for practitioners
who work specifically with fathers to come together and begin
to define some common ground and future direction. I also felt
a sense of hope that a national leader with Vice-President's
Gore's status had shown a genuine interest in this issue. The
image outlined here is shared as an integration of themes that
I heard at the conference and as a place to begin to forge a
positive image for men in our culture to "reach for". We must
have a vision to guide our work with men and the "courage to
hope" that men, families and social systems can grow towards
this new image.
References
Furstenberg, Frank. F (1988). Good Dads-Bad Dads: Two Faces of
Fatherhood in John Palmer and Isabel Sawhill (Eds.) The
Changing American Family and Public Policy.
Washington: The Urban Institute Press, 1988.
Jackson, Jesse (1994). Keynote Address to the Family Re-Union
III: The Role of Men in Children's Lives. Nashville, TN.
Father Re-Engagement Rountable (1994). Insights and
Understandings. July 9-12, 1994, Nashville, TN.
.
|
| 165.23 | 1994 GENDER EQUITY: WHAT IT MEANS FOR BOYS | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 15:06 | 71 |
|
1994 GENDER EQUITY: WHAT IT MEANS FOR BOYS
DAILY REPORT CARD
--- Friday --- May 27, 1994 --- Vol. 3 --- No. 206 ---
| by the National Education Goals Panel |
| 1850 M Street NW; Washington, D.C. 20036; 202/632-0952 |
| DRC hereby authorizes further reproduction and |
| distribution with proper acknowledgement. |
MN Children Youth and Families Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and
MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Phone 612-626-1212 EMAIL: [email protected]
GENDER EQUITY: WHAT IT MEANS FOR BOYS
"If society favors males, why do they have so many
problems?" queries Kevin Bushweller, assistant editor of the
AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL. Bushweller's litany of male
"problems" include: the suicide rate of boys between 10 and 14
is twice that of girls, according to the National Center for
Health Statistics; about 94% of the 883,593 people incarcerated
in the nation's prisons are males, according to the federal
Bureau of Justice Statistics; and federal health officials note
that more teenage boys than girls end up in the emergency room
due to cocaine overdoses.
Schools officials also relate a preponderance of boys
assigned to special education classes. The U.S. DoEd's Office of
Special Education Programs found that two-thirds of students in
special education are male. More than 70% of students with
learning disabilities are male and about 75% of youngsters
identified with having severe emotional problems are boys.
Bushweller asks "why do boys outnumber girls in special
education program?" A higher proportion of males are born with
genetic problems, according to the National Longitudinal Study of
Special Education Students conducted by the DoEd. But the study
also notes that sex bias also might cause more boys than girls to
be labeled learning disabled or emotionally disturbed. However,
Bushweller points out that "few educators have even considered
examining the problems boys face."
"You almost never hear about the problems of males unless
they're being looked at as part of a subgroup, such as black
males," explained Jeffrey Osowski, director of the Office of
Special Education programs in N.J.
Indeed, media coverage of research conducted by American U
professors Myra and David Sadker on how girls get shortchanged in
school and the earlier released report, "Shortchanging Girls,
Shortchanging America," by the American Association of University
Women continues to dominate discussions on gender equity.
Bushweller points to countervailing research by U of N.C. at
Greensboro Professor William Purkey. Purkey's study of 400 N.C.
students in grades six through eight found "boys have a much
lower image of themselves as students than girls do," writes
Bushweller.
Purkey said his study counters AAUW's conclusion that
adolescent boys are more likely than girls to see themselves as
smart enough to succeed in society. Boys tend to brag, according
to Purkey. He sees that as a "shield to hide deep-seated lack of
confidence. Girls, on the other hand, brag less and do better in
school," writes Bushweller. A 1993 DoEd study also found that
among high school seniors, more girls than boys (35% to 31%)
expect to pursue graduate studies, law or medical school.
Md. psychologist Gloria Van Derhorst remarks that boys are
underachievers because they tend to be more hyperactive in
school. And "traditionally, classrooms are not organized to suit
high-energy learners," writes Bushweller. Efforts to enhance
male achievement in school include recruiting male teachers and
conducting all-male classes, "especially in English, where boys
are afraid to express themselves in front of girls." (May 1994)
.
|
| 165.24 | Joint Custody Bibliography | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 15:07 | 324 |
|
Joint Custody Bibliography
Received From: David Garrod
What follows are papers published on joint custody, primarily
theses because that�s usually the best source. I have started
with 1980 as a starting date arbitrarily because that limits to
about 30 titles.
Please note in considering research in this area that it is
important to place more trust on comparative studies than
descriptive studies. There are a lot of subjective conclusions
made and comparison studies, i.e. comparing same-age, same-sex
children from different environments is less subjective than just
looking at children from one environment and trying to come to
conclusions from interviews.
MN Children Youth and Families consortium Electronic
Clearinghouse. Permission is granted to create and distribute
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes provided that
the author and MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgment and this notice is
included. Phone 612/626-1212. EMAIL: [email protected]
The main research papers discussing custody issues:
D.A. Luepnitz. Maternal, paternal and joint custody: A study of
families after divorce. Doctoral thesis 1980. State University of
New York at Buffalo. UMI No. 80-27618.
Luepnitz studied single parent custody and joint custody. Most
single parent children were dissatisfied with the amount of
visitation they had, whereas the children of joint custody
arrangements seemed reasonably happy with their exposure to both
their parents. The quality of the parent-child relationship was
determined to be better for joint custody. (The ncp-child
relationship is described as more like an aunt or uncle - child
relationship.)
S.A. Nunan. Joint custody versus single custody effects on child
development. Doctoral thesis 1980. California School of
Professional Psychology, Berkeley, UMI No. 81-10142
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. For children
under four at the time of separation the differences were very
small.
B. Welsh-Osga. The effects of custody arrangements on children of
divorce. Doctoral thesis 1981. University of South Dakota. UMI
No. 82-6914.
Welsh-Osga compared children in intact families with joint
custody and single custody families. Age range 4 1/2 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.) Children from all
four groups (intact families, sole maternal, sole paternal, joint
custody) were found to be equally well adjusted by their various
standardized measures.
D.B. Cowan. Mother Custody versus Joint Custody: Children`s
parental Relationship and Adjustment. Doctoral Thesis 1982.
University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213.
Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal) custody
families. Children in joint physical 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.
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. ?
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.
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.
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 situation. There was in increase reported in sibling
rivalry reported for sole custody children when visiting their
father (ncp). Girls in joint custody reported to have
significantly higher self-esteem than girls in sole custody.
D.A. Luepnitz. Child Custody: A Study of Families after Divorce.
Lexington Books 1982.
A summary of the thesis in book form.
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.
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.
L.P. Noonan. Effects of long-tern conflict on personality
functioning of children of divorce. Doctoral thesis 1984. The
Wright Institute Graduate School of Psychology, Berkeley. UMI No.
84-17931.
Long-term effects were studied in joint custody, sole maternal
custody and intact families. Children in joint custody families
were found to be more active than in sole custody families or
intact families. In low conflict situations children did better
(demonstrated less withdrawal) than in either sole custody or
intact families.
V. Shiller. Joint and Maternal Custody: The outcome for boys
aged 6-11 and their parents. Doctoral thesis 1984. University of
Delaware. UMI No. 85-11219.
The thesis compares 20 boys in joint custody with 20 matched
boys in sole maternal custody. A number of tests were used. Boys
from a joint custody environment were found to be better adjusted
than boys from a sole custody environment.
Joint Custody and Shared Parenting. (Collection of Papers)
Published by Bureau of National Affairs, Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts. Ed. Jay Folberg. 1984
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.
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.
G.M. Bredefeld. Joint Custody and Remarriage: its effects on
marital adjustment and children. Doctoral Thesis. California
School of Professional Psychology, Fresno. UMI No. 85-10926
Both sole and joint custody children adjusted well to the
remarriage of their parent; no significant difference found
between the groups. The parents of joint custody situations,
however, expressed more satisfaction with their children and
indicated that they appreciated the time alone with their
new spouse. Sole custody children also reported seeing their
father less often after remarriage of the mother; this did not
happen in joint custody situations.
B.H. Granite. An investigation of the relationships among self-
concept, parental behaviors, and the adjustment of children in
different living arrangements following a marital separation
and/or divorce. Doctoral thesis 1985. University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. UMI No. 85-23424.
Parents in sole custodial homes (both maternal and paternal)
were perceived as using psychological pressure techniques to
control children. e.g. inducing guilt. However, in joint custody
homes, the perception of the children was that such techniques
were seldom used. No difference in self-concept was detectable
among the different homes. Children`s ages 9-12 years. 15 joint,
15 maternal sole, 15 paternal sole.
S. Handley. The experience of the child in sole and joint
custody. Doctoral thesis 1985. California Graduate School of
Marriage and Family Therapy.
Joint custody children more satisfied than sole custody
children.
S.M.H.Hanson. Healthy single parent families. Family Relations
v.35, p.125-132, 1985.
21 joint custody and 21 sole custody families compared. Mothers
in joint custody found in better mental health. Mothers with sole
custody sons had the least amount of social support and mothers
with joint custody of sons had the most. Joint custody mothers
reported best child-parent problem solving of all.
S. A. Wolchik, S. L. Braver and I.N. Sandler. J. of Clinical
Child Psych. Vol. 14, p.5-10, 1985. Self-esteem found higher in
children of joint custody. Children in joint custody report
significantly more positive experiences than children of sole
maternal custody.
P. M. Raines. (Misplaced reference)
Paper describes a survey of 1,200+ children whose parents are in
process of divorcing. Children wishing to live with both parents
given as a function of age: under age 8, 90%; age 8 - 10, 76%, age
10 - 12, 44%. 1985 paper.
J. Pearson and N. Thoennes. The Judges Journal, Winter, 1986.
Will this Divorced Woman Receive Support? Your Custody Decision
may determine the Answer. Child support compared among sole
custody and joint custody. Joint custody shown to produce much
better compliance in child support payments to the mother.
J.S. Wallerstein and R. McKinnon. Joint Custody and the Preschool
Child. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, v.4, p.169-183, 1986.
This paper presents joint custody for young children in a
negative light, however, it is based on descriptive research not
comparative research, having no control or comparison group.
E.E. Maccoby, R.H. Mnookin and C.E. Depner. Post-divorce
families: Custodial arrangements compared. American Association
of Science, Philadelphia. May 1986.
Mothers with joint custody were found to be more satisfied, when
compared with mothers in sole custody situation.
P. M. Raines. Joint custody and the right to travel: legal and
psychological implications. J. of Family Law, v. 24, 625-656,
1986
P. Neubauer. Reciprocal effects of fathering on parent and child.
Men Growing Up. (1986)
J. Schaub. Joint Custody After Divorce: Views and Attitudes of
Mental Health Professionals and Writers. Rutgers University,
Doctoral Thesis. 1986. No. 86-14559
V. Shiller. Joint versus maternal families with latency age boys:
Parent characteristics and child adjustment. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, v. 56, p. 486-9, 1986.
Interviews with boys as well as with both parents. Age group 6-
11. Found boys from joint custody families better adjusted than
comparison group of boys from sole maternal custody families.
M.B. Isaacs, G.H. Leon and M. Kline. When is a parent out of the
picture? Different custody, different perceptions. Family
Process, v.26, p.101-110, 1987.
This study compares children from five groups: joint physical
custody, joint-legal maternal-physical, joint-legal paternal-
physical, sole maternal and sole paternal custody. On their
measurement of how children perceive the importance of family
members, sole custody children were three times mores likely to
omit one parent than joint custody situations.
F.S. Williams. Child Custody and Parental Cooperation. American
Bar Assn, Family Law, August 1987.
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.
CRC Report: R-103A. Synopses of Sole and Joint Custody Studies.
Shows that the preponderance of research supports the presumption
that joint custody is in the best interests of children. 1987.
A GOOD REVIEW PAPER:
J.B. Kelly. Longer term adjustment in children of divorce:
Converging Findings and Implications for Practice. Journal of
Family Psychology, v.2, p.112-140, 1988.
M. Zaslow. Sex Differences in children`s response to parental
divorce. Paper 1. Research methodology and postdivorce family
forms. American J. of Orthopsychiatry. v.58, 355, 1988.
Paper 2. Samples, Variables, Ages and Sources. Am. J.
Orthopsychiatry, v.59, p118, 1989.
J.S. Wallerstein and S. Blakeslee. Second chances: Men, women and
children after divorce. New York, Ticknor and Fields. 1989
M. Kline, J.M. Tschann, J.R. Johnson and J.S. Wallerstein.
Children`s adjustment in joint and sole custody families.
Developmental Psychology, v. 25, p. 430-435, 1989.
This work finds that in non-conflicted joint and sole custody
families there is little measurable difference between a child�s
behavior in sole or joint custody. (Strangely, this paper states
"Some quantitative studies have found no differences in
symptomatology between joint and sole custody children", citing
work by Luepnitz and also Wolchik, Braver and Sandler. However,
Luepnitz pointed out that joint custody children retain
a more normal parent-child relationship than sole custody
children, Wolchik et al found that joint custody children have
significantly more positive experiences and higher self-esteem
than sole custody counter-parts!)
Lehrman paper
Study of 90 children, equally divided between joint physical,
joint-legal maternal, and sole maternal custody. Sole custody
children shown to have greater self-hate and perceived more
rejection from their fathers. Joint physical and joint legal
custody children suffered fewer emotional problems than sole
custody children. 1990 paper, have misplaced reference.
L.M.C. Bisnaire, P. Firestone and D. Rynard. Factors associated
with academic achievement in children following parent separation.
American J. of Orthopsychiatry. v.60(1), p.67-76, 1990
Visitation found to be a most significant factor in enabling
children to maintain pre-divorce academic standards.
J. Pearson and N. Thoennes. Custody after divorce: Demographic
and attitudinal patterns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
v.60(2), p. 233-249, 1990.
Regular visitation shown to be significant in a number of
factors explaining positive adjustment patterns.
R.A. Warshak. The Custody Revolution. 1992.
D. Popenoe, Associate Dean for Social and Behavioral Sciences of
Rutgers University, co-chairman of the Council on Families in
America. "The Controversial Truth: Two-parent Families are
Better." Published in Speak out for Children, v.8 Winter 1992-3.
The Best Parent is Both Parents, D.L. Levy, Hampton Roads
Publishing Co., Norfolk, Virginia. 1 (800) 677-8707. 1993.
Address for obtaining theses:
University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Rd, Ann Arbor,
MI 48106. 1 (800) 521-3042.
.
|
| 165.25 | Resources for Fathers | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 15:09 | 81 |
|
Resources for Fathers (fwd)
---------- Submitted by [email protected]
Children's Rights Council of Minnesota PO Box 294 Rochester, MN 55903-0294.
I am writing this regarding the FatherNet Gopher. First of all I will say
that it is a nice addition, and will be very valuable.
My interest in "father" issues is related to my interest in family law reform
specifically working to keep fathers involved after divorce through shared
care and increased visitation. From this interest though I have accummulated
articles and references that may be of interest to you.
BOOKS. FatherLove by Richard Louv. ISBN 0-671-79420-5.
WORKING PAPERS.
The Good Family Man by David Blankenhorn Publication no: WP 12 Institute for
American Values November 1991
The Father and the Masculine Life Cycle by David Gutmann Publication no:
WP 13 Institute for Amierican Values November 1991
The Nature of Fatherhood by Karl Zinsmeister Publication no: WP 11 Institute
for American Values November 1991
I ordered these papers through the Institute for a fee, but perhaps since
David Blankenhorn is on the Board you could get permission to post them. They
are all very good, but especially The Good Family Man.
ARTICLES.
Some of these go back a ways. If you want copies of them, please let me know
and I can send them.
3/14/94 William Raspberry Column, Rochester Post Bulletin
2/26/94 Suzanne Fields, Pioneer Press
11/17/93 Don Feder, Conservative Chronicle
7/10/93 William Raspberry, Star Tribune
5/21/93 William Raspberry, Washington Post
5/17/93 William Raspberry, Chicago Tribune
12/7/92 Christopher N. Bacorn, Newsweek
6/22/92 Suzanne Fields, Pioneer Press
6/19/92 Ellen Goodman, Pioneer Press
5/19/92 Gallup Poll article, Star Tribune
5/12/92 William Raspberry, Rochester Post Bulletin
1/22/92 William Raspberry, Washington Post
1/20/92 William Raspberry, Washington Post
1/10/92 Murray Dubin, Philadelphia Inquirer
1/10/92 Irene Sege, Boston Globe
1/9/92 Louis Sullivan, speech from Institnute for American Values Commission
on Families in America
The 1/20-22/92 William Raspberry columns are especially good and in looking
for them I found all of these other ones in my files.
OTHER
Family Advocate, journal by the ABA Family Law Section Vol 15, No 3. Article
on page 18, "Why Children need their fathers"
I hope you find these of interest and will consider posting them on FatherNet.
For some of the articles, the authors are on your board so they may give
permission or have other articles that would be of interest.
.
|
| 165.21 | FATHERS RIGHTS & EQUALITY EXCHANGE | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 15:36 | 72 |
|
PROVIDED BY F.R.E.E. - FATHERS RIGHTS & EQUALITY EXCHANGE
Information provided by Chris Stafford
Father's Resource Center
This study was conducted jointly by the Bureau of Census, and the
Department of Health and Human Services.
This report was based on a population of 9,955,000 custodial mothers throughout
the country. Custodial fathers were not surveyed because, the report explains
"the survey sample size is insufficient to provide reliable statitsics".
1. PERCENTAGE OF CHILD SUPPORT ACTUALLY RECEIVED:
Of all of the women surveyed who had orders for child support, 75.2% received
child support! 51.4% of them received the full amount due, and 23.8 percent of
them received at least some of the amount.
This means that on a national level, over one half of all women with child
support orders are receiving the *full amount*, and another quarter are
receiving at least something.
The remaining one quarter (24.8%) received none.
While it is not good that 24.8% are not receiving support, that 75+% *are*
receiving support, and that over half are receiving full support, is *very*
different than what is being bannered across our nation's press, and in our
state and federal capitals!
The rest of the women, 42.3%, did not receive child support
BECAUSE NO SUPPORT HAD BEEN AWARDED! Not because the father was not paying
the order; there *was* no order!
2. LINK BETWEEN TIMESHARE AND CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE:
For the women who were receiving child support, it was demonstrated that where
there was a joint custody arrangement, child support compliance was at 90.2%!
Where the father had at least some timeshare and access to his children,
compliance was at 79.1%.
Where the father had no access at all, compliance was down around
44.5%.
3. REASONS THE MOTHERS GAVE FOR LACK OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARD:
Of the women who did not have awards (orders) for child support (42.3% of all
women!), a full 21.9% of them stated that it was because THEY DID NOT WANT IT!
Understand: when you hear about the "huge numbers of women who do not get
child support"...one-fifth of them have reported it is because they did not
*want* it!
Another 14.5% reported that it was because the father was not able to pay.
Not "the S.O.B. deadbeat has plenty of money but won't pay"...but "the father
*can't* pay"!
Another 19.3% reported that while they may have wanted an award of
child support, they did not pursue it.
Only 13.6% reported that they could not find the father, and 16.5%
reported "other reasons" which includes "instances where paternity
could not be established".
.
|
| 165.26 | end of fathernet research articles | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Apr 06 1995 15:38 | 4 |
| replies to this topic are now reenabled.
andreas.
|
| 165.27 | Thanks | NQOPS::APRIL | Xtra Lame Triple Owner | Fri Apr 07 1995 10:37 | 6 |
|
Thank you Andreas ! This material should be very helpful and
enlightening. You are to be congradulated on your finding the
FatherNet.
Chuck
|
| 165.28 | Thanks! Ditto! | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Fri Apr 07 1995 11:02 | 1 |
|
|
| 165.29 | re .9 | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Mon Apr 10 1995 10:19 | 86 |
| re 165.9 "The Human Father and the Masculine Life Cycle" by David Gutmann
has anyone read the article in 165.9?
the author defines two major roles for the father:
- as the provider of physical security (as opposed to the role of mother, as
the provider of emotional security)
- and "as an alternate, less proximal figure of strength and provision, one who
matches the child's growing need for distance, he becomes a magnet, a way
station on the child's road outward to the world, and away from an unboundaried
union with the mother."
these roles reflect the author's understanding of the natural history of
mankind. are these roles useful to modern day man?
if the role of the "distant" father is to facilitate the child's detachment
from emotional proximity, if "fathers cannot be reliable sources of emotional
nurture" and if fathers are best suited to fill the roles of providers of
physical security (often from a distance), where does this leave modern day
man in his fight for custody?
reading 165.9 i am left concluding that for divorced parents, children are
best left to grow up with their mother. the author, david gutmann, seems to
have left little space for modern day man to define new fathering roles. did
you read this the same??
andreas.
below the two relevant quotes:
.9> Thus, if it [the child] is to thrive by any reasonable criteria, the
.9> vulnerable human child must be assured of two kinds of parental
.9> nurturance: it must be given some assurance of physical security and
.9> also of emotional security. There is also a general recognition,
.9> across our species, that the same parent cannot adequately provide both
.9> kinds of security. The child's physical security ultimately depends on
.9> activities carried out far from home: warfare, hunting (including the
.9> modern version of the hunt, for business and clients), and the
.9> cultivation of distant tillage. Far from home on their lawful
.9> occasions, fathers cannot be reliable sources of emotional nurture.
.9> Men are generally assigned the task of providing physical security
.9> on the perimeter, not because they are more privileged, but because
.9> they are more expendable.
and
.9> Achieving Distance via the Father
.9>
.9> At the outset of life, this mother-child merger -- a continuation
.9> in psychological terms of the intrauterine umbilical link -- is
.9> necessary for the infant's future psyche-social development, which
.9> must be away from the mother. Assured of a stable home base, the infant
.9> can begin to explore its world and to provoke change in it. Thus,
.9> human development proceeds by paradox, in a dialectical fashion:
.9> the almost exclusive mother-child bonding that is so crucial in the
.9> first year of life prepares for its own negation, in the period of
.9> early autonomy, during which the child practices psychological and
.9> physical separation from the mother. During this pivotal exploratory
.9> period, the linear arrangement of the family -- father tends the
.9> mother, mother tends kids -- begins to break down and the
.9> father, because he is different from the mother, because he
.9> betokens the desired distance from Mom, and because in his own way
.9> he also nurtures, becomes a psychological "object," a presence in
.9> the emotional life of the separating child. The linear arrangement
.9> gives way to the family triangle: daughters fall in love with their
.9> daddies; and sons -- even while they revere him -- take the father
.9> as a kind of rival for the mother's affection. In either case,
.9> in step with the child's development, the father's role in the family
.9> has taken on a new and special meaning: as an alternate, less
.9> proximal figure of strength and provision, one who matches the child's
.9> growing need for distance, he becomes a magnet, a way station on the
.9> child's road outward to the world, and away from an unboundaried union
.9> with the mother. The father is still majorly responsible for providing
.9> physical security, but at this point -- even under conditions of
.9> affluence and assured supplies -- he can become a vital agent in
.9> the child's emotional life. If the father can maintain a vivid and
.9> distinctive presence, then at this time of early mother-child
.9> separation, he will support the maturation of daughters as well as
.9> sons.
|
| 165.30 | ex | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Mon Apr 10 1995 12:07 | 14 |
| re .29 re .9
I saw .9 as a debunking of the idea that all father is is a paycheck
and the father is disposable so long as the paycheck can be kept.
according to Gutmann, the minimal "fathering" is to "be there" as
an _example_ of how to deal with independence and the outside world.
I see it also as a debunking of the idea that men's and women's roles
in marriage should be merged. Both have a very distinct and very
vital role in the family. The merging of the father's role into
the mother's role has devalued the traditional role of the father,
again making him redundant and disposable.
fred();
|
| 165.31 | what about single-parent families? | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Mon Apr 10 1995 12:59 | 24 |
| .30> according to Gutmann, the minimal "fathering" is to "be there" as
.30> an _example_ of how to deal with independence and the outside world.
yes, i read this too, ie. with regards to the process of detachment in
childhood when gutmann writes "If the father can maintain a vivid and
distinctive presence, then at this time of early mother-child separation,
he will support the maturation of daughters as well as sons."
.30> I see it also as a debunking of the idea that men's and women's roles
.30> in marriage should be merged. Both have a very distinct and very
.30> vital role in the family.
the difficulty i see with relying on gender specific roles in marriage is,
does this not set up one gender to be more suitable for child-raising over
the other? following this leaning on gender specific roles as defined by
gutmann, it would seem that with a breakdown of the marriage, the fathers
_are_ more disposable than the mothers. according to the text, the fathers
can't provide the emotional security which the child needs in early childhood.
if that were true and a generally accepted fact, it would become very
difficult for a father to be awarded custody of young children, don't you
think?
andreas.
|
| 165.32 | thanks and brief comments | CSSE::NEILSEN | Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt | Mon Apr 10 1995 13:49 | 13 |
| Andreas,
You can add my thanks to those already expressed.
Re .9, I tried to read it off the screen but overloaded on the jargon. I have
printed it out to try again.
I found .10 to be more readable, and it seems to be making similar points, based
on your summary. I'll probably be commenting on .10 later.
Wally
|
| 165.33 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Mon Apr 10 1995 14:26 | 31 |
| re .31
>the difficulty i see with relying on gender specific roles in marriage is,
>does this not set up one gender to be more suitable for child-raising over
>the other?
The problem is that the father's role in family has been devalued
as a domineering abusive brute. According to popular propaganda,
unless he can convert to a more motherly role, then he is useless,
even detrimental.
>following this leaning on gender specific roles as defined by
>gutmann, it would seem that with a breakdown of the marriage, the fathers
>_are_ more disposable than the mothers. according to the text, the fathers
>can't provide the emotional security which the child needs in early childhood.
>if that were true and a generally accepted fact, it would become very
>difficult for a father to be awarded custody of young children, don't you
>think?
No. Gutmann is making the point that the traditional fatherly role
is every bit as essential to the child's development as the traditional
motherly role. Given that, the motherly role is probably more
essential in early childhood, and as the child matures, a father's
role as disciplinarian, moral leader, spiritual leader, and example
(if nothing else) becomes more essential. Given that, the case can
be made that, the older the child, the more essential it is to
award custody to the father (if an award must be made). We are just
beginning, after several years of heavy propaganda to the contrary,
to realize just how vital this fatherly role is.
fred();
|
| 165.34 | fathers roles is difficult | NQOPS::APRIL | Xtra Lame Triple Owner | Mon Apr 10 1995 16:43 | 11 |
|
The article attempts to focus on the importance of the traditional
father's role. But that role is as a disciplinarian and a non-forgiving
seperate entity. I have this problem in attempting to do this now.
I keep appearing to be the 'Bad Guy' from my kids point of view while
Mom, who does little or no discipline, gets to be the 'Nice Guy' all
the time.
Who do you think the kids prefer to be with ?
Chuck
|
| 165.35 | ... a difficult (topic) indeed! | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Tue Apr 11 1995 08:17 | 47 |
|
.34> The article attempts to focus on the importance of the traditional
.34> father's role. But that role is as a disciplinarian and a non-forgiving
.34> seperate entity.
chuck, as i read it, several articles (.9,.10,.11) draw the picture of the
father being more concerned than the mother with the child's successful
adaption to the "world outside", with the child's submission to the rules
and the norms of the world in general. this alleged predisposition of the
father to assume a guiding and disciplining role, would make the father
invaluable, and as i am inclined to conclude with fred on reading .9, this
would make the father almost more important an influence than the mother when
the children reach adolesence. certainly as far as traditional societies go,
the father is perceived as being primarily responsible for 'molding' his
children into society.
my question is, do roles of fathers in traditional societies, where gender
specific behaviour is both firmly embedded and severly restricted by prescribed
norms, equally apply to our modern industrialised societies?
when some of us fathers are called upon to 'draw the line with the kids' is it,
because we as fathers are more inclined by nature to be 'tough' on our
misbehaving kids or is this a role which we are being pushed into by some of
the mothers?
just how distinctly different and relevanrt are mums and dads when the children
come into the teenage years? to what extent can we define gender specific role
models in a society which leaves so much freedom to the parents to find and
define their own roles?
i doubt that we can ever find any more than individual preferences and
accumulations of coinciding preferences across gender (of the category
'most fathers do..., most fathers don't...'), with such preferences having
little normative power however.
what david blankenhom (.10), in his history of the changing role of father
and the loss of tradition since the industrial revolution summarizes as the
father's "long march from the center to the periphery of domestic life" should
perhaps better be summarised as "man's unexpected tumble from periphery to the
center of domestic life" with images of fathers in aprons by the kitchen sink
and mothers leaving home dressed in business suits becoming much more common
place nowadays!! [if not in american society, then certainly in scandinavia ;-)]
it seems to me, that today at least the choice is there for fathers. that we
as fathers today have much more of a choice to be around our children than our
fathers did and that traditional roles for fathers have done more to keep
fathers away from children rather than bringing them closer to their children.
andreas.
|
| 165.36 | My thoughts .... | NQOPS::APRIL | Xtra Lame Triple Owner | Tue Apr 11 1995 10:03 | 42 |
|
Andreas,
Your thoughts and experiences on this subject are extremely interesting
because you bring in the European aspect to the table. It would be
really great if we could get someone to participate from the Asian
culture or Latino where the Male-centric culture is strong.
I agree that if you read the articles and beleive in their contents
then it would appear that for purposes of Custody, older children
should be placed primarilly with the Father to best prepare the child
for life. But as you state, the Choice is the Fathers in what role he
wants to play. But he needs to *KNOW* his purpose in life and he has
to beleive in himself. Most men are struggling with that issue NOW.
Moreso, the judicial system needs to be made aware of the purpose of
the Father in the *active* development of the child from child to adult.
Right now that purpose seems to be based off of money ... a sad, sad
commentary.
The flip side of the issue is the lack of change in women and mothers.
Yes, they want their corporate lives and they want their CHOICES of
lifestyles. But they are not coming to the table with the tools and
determination to SHARE in the responsibilities of raising an adult
(ie. preparing a child for life as an adult). They are NOT willing to
concede that the Father or the Father's role is necessary. If they
were to take the traditional Father's role as disciplinarian,
teacher, moral character builder, etc. then great ! Perhaps then the
male could provide the emotional and nurturing balance.
The point is that the needs of a child DO NOT CHANGE .... the parents
must change to provide for the needs of the child but BOTH parents
need to recognise this and agree and support each other in providing
this. In a marriage it is easier. That is what marriage is all about
in valuing each other contribution and supporting the other partner.
Unfortunately, in a divorce situation the incentive is not there to
be mutually supportive and thus the child suffers. The Mother might not
see this until much later when the child is struggling in early adult-
hood but then it is too late.
Can we hear from a Woman on this issue ? What are their thoughts ?
Chuck
|
| 165.37 | some thoughts on .9 and .10 | CSSE::NEILSEN | Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt | Tue Apr 11 1995 13:44 | 43 |
| I am glad to see that both .9 and .10 say many of the same positive things about
the value of fathers. I think that they make an excellent case that children
should be raised by both parents if possible. And that the needs of children
which have been traditionally been met by fathers must still be met.
I think that anyone thinking about being a parent should look carefully at the
concept of the good family man at the end of .10.
Now a few specific responses to recent notes
Chuck in .36 shows, I think, that men, women and the legal system need to be
more aware of all the needs of children, including those tradtionally met by
fathers. Men need it to understand their proper role in the family and society.
Women need it to recognize that these needs must be met, by themselves, by their
partner or by both. The legal system needs to recognize these needs in making
custody decisions.
.36> Unfortunately, in a divorce situation the incentive is not there to
> be mutually supportive and thus the child suffers. The Mother might not
> see this until much later when the child is struggling in early adult-
> hood but then it is too late.
True, and a serious problem. Just by recognizing it, I think you are starting
on a good path. You may be asking for advice, but since I am not a father, much
less a single father, I'll let others speak.
.35>my question is, do roles of fathers in traditional societies, where gender
>specific behaviour is both firmly embedded and severly restricted by prescribed
>norms, equally apply to our modern industrialised societies?
A good question, which I will try to give some thoughts on in another note.
.31>can't provide the emotional security which the child needs in early
>childhood.
>if that were true and a generally accepted fact, it would become very
>difficult for a father to be awarded custody of young children, don't you
>think?
Yes, as Fred says, this theory would favor mothers for young children and
fathers for older children, other things being equal, when sole custody is the
only alternative. But I think the theory says much more strongly that sole
custody is very undesirable.
|
| 165.38 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Apr 11 1995 16:04 | 21 |
|
As the corporate member of a household and a woman, I feel I can answer
how families that are non-traditional can work this.
Frank and I share discipline and nurturing, although he has more
opportunity to be the nurturer, since he is home with Atlehi and
Carrie. neither of us is unforgiving, and we try to be even-handed and
in agreement on our strategies. He was also at home for my oldest from
about the age of 12 on. She isn't an ax murderer, confused (any more
than any other generation x feminist), or a drag on society.
What I don't understand with this is why not use gender nuetral roles,
where both parents share responsibility for nurturing, discipline, and
all the many other things it takes to raise a child to be a responsible
adult? It has worked/is working for my family. My kids are growing up
in a home where people can do any of the many roles that adults need to
follow and to survive. I consider this to be one fo the greater gifts
we can leave our kids.
meg
|
| 165.39 | why not? | CSSE::NEILSEN | Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt | Wed Apr 12 1995 14:50 | 41 |
| .38> What I don't understand with this is why not use gender nuetral roles,
Good question, Meg.
If you read .10, you got David Blankenhom's answer in his own words. If not,
I'll try to give a quick summary. You can still go back to .10 for the details.
He first argues that children need two parents, and that they have a range of
needs. It seems we all agree with him on that. Then he offers a number of
reasons for preferring gender-specific to gender neutral roles:
Gender neutral roles demean both men and fathers, by denying their unique
contribution to children's growth. This encourages both men and women to
consider fathers to be expendable parents, which in turn encourages fathers to
evade their responsibilities.
The vast majority of the world's present and historical cultures accept
gender-specific roles. Before we go against this experience, we should have
some good evidence that we are right.
The obvious physical differences between men and women are linked to
psychological differences which make men more suited to meeting some needs, and
women more suited to meeting others.
Gender neutral roles do not have a clear cultural support, so people who try to
follow them are left on their own.
The acceptance of gender neutral roles is just a symptom of larger problems in
our culture, and its failure to provide roles for men or women.
For the record, I have a lot of reservations about this part of Blankenhom's
work. I'll try to put some in a later note. Still, I think that his ideas are
well worth thinking about.
> It has worked/is working for my family.
Great. You still might want to check out .10. It may give you some idea about
problems you may face in the future. Forewarned is forearmed.
|