Clear66° FULL FORECASTClear66° FULL FORECAST
Make us your home page
Instagram
label here

Divorce and custody: Dads getting a better deal

Jason Patric: He has the advantage of money.

Getty Images

Jason Patric: He has the advantage of money.

Last week the actor Jason Patric went to court to "fight 'til I'm dead," as he put it, to see his 4-year-old son. Patric and his girlfriend conceived the child through in vitro fertilization, and a judge earlier denied Patric any paternal rights. Since then, Patric has become a hero to frustrated fathers everywhere who are alienated from their ex-wives and girlfriends.

Patric is part of a movement of vigilante fathers who challenge the assumption that mothers should have any more rights than they do. Skier Bode Miller famously challenged a girlfriend's right to move to New York after she got pregnant with his child, and earlier this year a group of Utah fathers sued the state over a law allowing mothers to give up their babies for adoption without their consent. The courts, argued one of the Utah plaintiffs, treat men "like they're scum — like they don't have rights at all as far as having a relationship with their children."

It used to be that women had to worry about men disappearing after they got pregnant or divorced. Now, some women have the opposite problem. A growing fathers' rights movement is aggressively challenging what it sees as the courts' assumption that the mother is the only real parent. Men's rights activists air their grievances about unfair child custody laws on sites such as A Voice for Men and on subreddits like Men's Rights and The Red Pill.

"Men are angry at losing their kids in the divorce court and taking their dream of raising them and reducing it to a child support payment and every other weekend," writes one men's rights blogger quoted in Michael Kimmel's 2013 book Angry White Men. And that view is shared by the broader public. One recent study showed that people are generally in favor of joint custody, but they believe that divorce courts are seriously slanted toward mothers.

But is this actually true?

"There's a real perception — even women share it — that courts are unfair to fathers," says Ira Ellman, a custody expert at Arizona State University. But in fact the great revolution in family court over the past 40 years or so has been the movement away from the presumption that mothers should be the main, or even sole, caretakers for their children. On the whole, courts are fair to men, particularly men who can afford a decent lawyer.

Cases like Patric's and Miller's, which involve fathers who never married the mothers, are relatively new to the courts, but divorce courts have a long history of trying to keep up with changing gender dynamics. In the 1970s, family courts began to move away from assuming a model of breadwinner husband and dependent wife. Instead, courts assumed interdependence, meaning that husband and wife shared assets and domestic duties.

Pretty rapidly, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone explain in their new book, Marriage Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family, the rules became more "gender neutral." As the image of an abandoned, innocent wife faded, alimony declined. The maternal presumption that mothers should automatically get custody of younger children also faded. And the vast majority of states moved toward an assumption of joint custody.

Men's rights activists complain that mother preference lingers, and studies have shown that through the 1980s sole mother custody prevailed. But that is changing. According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support.

Berkeley law professor Mary Ann Mason has tracked the changing priorities of divorce courts over three decades. The biggest recent change, she writes, is the courts' preference for the "friendly parent," meaning the one who can get along with the other parent. Mothers who get in the way of a father's involvement can in fact be penalized by the courts.

In their book, Cahn and Carbone tell the story of the Renauds, a divorcing Vermont couple whose case was resolved in 2004. Before the divorce, the couple shared child care. The mother took Fridays off to be with the children, and the father took them to and from day care and was an involved dad. The marriage ended when the father told the mother that he was having an affair with a colleague. In another era, the mother would have gotten sole custody of the children. Now, "the mother's ability to retain custody depends on her willingness to support the father's involvement," Cahn and Carbone write. In this case, the mother accused the father of abuse and neglect. When investigators could not confirm the charges, the court awarded the father 50 percent custody and made the mother's custody contingent on her working to repair the relationship with the father.

The real inequality in family courts these days is not based on gender, but on income. With elite, college educated men, "it's outrageous how little they can end up paying in child support in some cases," says Ellman, the Arizona State professor. But poorer men are in a different situation. Welfare reform in the 1990s included an effort to track down fathers who weren't paying child support. As the economy sank, those fathers fell behind on their payments and often wound up in jail or permanent debt.

A father who never married the mother of his child has a much shakier legal status. Petitioning the courts for paternal rights as a father who had a child out of wedlock is complicated to do and much less likely to be successful. A legal system that has evolved to recognize equal, interdependent parents doesn't really apply. In this social class the women are generally better off and choose not to marry the fathers, precisely because they want to avoid future legal disputes over children.

If that father is Jason Patric or Bode Miller, he can probably afford a lawyer and get sympathetic publicity. But the best a poor father can hope for if he wants to impact his child is to be a steady paycheck.

Hanna Rosin is the author of The End of Men. She wrote this column for Slate.com.

Divorce and custody: Dads getting a better deal 05/18/14 [Last modified: Sunday, May 18, 2014 5:32pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

© 2014 Tampa Bay Times

    

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

Loading...