If it had been a 'White' presidential candidate who had said such a thing then the press would have been all over it like ants on spilled jam. But does this, the fact that Obama is not white, give Obama an in-road to what some think is a real problem with absent fathers in the US?

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it," the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown.

Reminding the congregation of his firsthand experience growing up without a father, Obama said he was lucky to have loving grandparents who helped his mother. He got support, second chances and scholarships that helped him get an education. Obama's father left when he was 2.

As we know, Obama was abandoned by his father at that age, is this the defining issue with him - does it still hurt him this much that he has to say:

"I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle -- that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls," added Obama, whose daughters, Sasha and Malia, and his wife, Michelle, watched from the audience.

"We can't simply write these problems off to past injustices," Obama said Sunday. "Those injustices are real. There's a reason our families are in disrepair ... but we can't keep using that as an excuse."

Obama urged black parents to demand the best from themselves and their children.

He compared it to his own presidential campaign and early comments from black voters who said they liked him but didn't think a black man could ever be elected president. He said they were admitting defeat before the competition had even begun.

"That was when I wasn't black enough. Now I'm too black," he said in a joking aside.
advertisement

He said parents who proudly tell him their child gets great grades, all B's, should encourage them even more.

"All B's? Is that the highest grade?" Obama said. "It's great that you can get a B, but you can get a better grade. It's great that you've got a job, but you can get a better job."

Maybe Obama is a more inclusive candidate than we first thought.

I have watched my husband with our sons, and he is such a good dad. And it hurts to think that my dad has never made the effort to know me, he just did what was expected of him while my brother and I were growing up. But, the desire to be a "dad" to us was never there. My dad is very witty and charming, he always manages to make everyone laugh and feel comfortable. He could sell you an igloo in Arizona. And when I am around him, or talk to him on the phone, I fall under his spell, (like everyone else), I become "daddy's little girl" wanting his approval and willing to take whatever he is willing to give me. He always tells me exactly what I want to hear and I just eat it up. I have never been brave enough to tell him how much he has hurt me, by not being there. Perhaps I'm afraid I will lose him completely? He has 3 more daughters... all lovely. Ages 13, 23, and 27 And even though we all have different mothers, you can tell we are sisters. They are all still in that "persuing his affection" mode, they just don't know any different. I wonder how he can look at them and not think of me?

And now, he has 2 grandsons (as well as two acquired granddaughters) that he does not know, will never know... and that makes me so sad, because he is really missing out on what amazing kids they are.

So, I have come to a place where I just don't want to keep persuing his affection. I just don't have the energy anymore. He knows where I am. And even though I probably should have called him on his birthday, I can't help but, wonder if he feels guilt or remorse for never remembering mine, for never being there when I was growing up, apart from the big things. But, it was the little everyday things that I needed him for the most. My mom told me she and my dad would have been married for 41 years this week! I'm glad they didn't stay together, because my mom is very happily married to the man who has been a real father to me since I was 9. Besides, I like my life and I like who I am, despite not having him there. And now Father's Day is right around the corner and I just wish I didn't care so much.

Bradshaw, Stimson, Williams & Skinner
(University of York SPRU).

Economic & Social Research Council
Programme on Population and Household Change
Seminar March 1997

(A review by Robert J. Whiston, FRSA).

This is an excellent if, at 20 pages, a rather short pilot into the uncharted waters of Non-Resident Fathers and, by implication, fatherless children.

From the very beginning (page 1) the very pertinent and political point is made that, in these sensitive times of accounting for the tax-payer money, Non-Resident Fathers are not likely, if ever, to be dependant on public services, i.e. state benefits, on the scale presented by single mothers. This nicely parallels the situation with regard to single fathers, with custody of children, who are also less likely to call upon, or be a burden to, state resources. (OPCS "Population Trends", verifies the fact that almost 70% of lone fathers are in full-time employment compared to only 40% for lone mothers – almost half of which are in part-time employment).

Whether these two points will lead to a realisation by Gov't that, at a stroke, expenditure can be slashed by allowing the very many fathers who want to bring up their children a major share in the process, is problematical.

Many of these fathers it would appear have captured the knack that is said to elude so many women, i.e. they are able to combine home with work commitments. By strategies that include balanced days, being self-employed or working at home, men have overcome the very obstacles said to pose the greatest barriers to women returning to the workplace.

Whether this feminine inability is by design or accident, or a function of the different socio-economic class between the two groups is debatable (and with so little data or research directed towards fathers, we couldn't possibly comment at this stage).

It is perhaps worth noting that later on in the Paper figures show that 20% of fathers that were made childless and Non-Resident simply dropped out of the labour market. This should be compared with other estimates that up to 40% of divorced men become less economically active.

Perhaps inadvertently, lone fathers have pioneered a viable way forward for policy makers. Ever practical, men have pre-empted Gov't initiatives by employing full or part-time help (usually female) to help with meals, shopping, clothes washing and buying. The Gov'ts variation on this theme, of course, is the preferred gender reversal approach where millions of pounds will be committed in a 'macho' attempt to show who's in charge.

It continues (and we're still on page 2) in the same vein with some frighteningly poignant observations that are perhaps lost on the rather dull brain cells that are bequeathed politicians and are mandatory for civil servants. The Paper is unequivocal in its castigation of the assertion that fathers are feckless. Almost stridently it mocks, with the aid of statistics, the hollowness of that and the imported term from the U.S. of Deadbeat Dads. Unfortunately, both expressions have entered the popular culture with a vengeance. The York Report explodes the perceived persona as essentially a mythical creation. The blame for this is firmly placed on the Murdoch Press during its successful courtship and ingratiation of the Thatcher administration. Figures from the statistical dept of the Dept of Social Security amply demonstrate that the number of so called dead-beat-dads match almost exactly those fathers who are unemployed or disabled and unable to work.

Commentators all too easily forget that we have, from the 16th century onwards, records and private diaries of men detailing the delight taken in fathering children and being a father to children. Fathers have always enjoyed joining in games and watching their children's development (see "Roads to Divorce" Prof. Stone, Princeton University (trilogy) and "Fatherhood Reclaimed", Adrienne Burgess).

Reading this paper I can't help but feel the authors haven't quite come to terms with the relevant dynamics. Fatherhood, for a man, is a serious but unspoken role he knows his peers and the community at large will judge him by. Less mature males, boys and young men, may be more disposed to so-called macho tendencies and haven't this commitment fully developed. However, in my personal experience, as an employer, even the most wayward apprentice is pulled up short by his entrance into paternity. The transfiguration is truly remarkable.

Where I question the Paper is in the notation that 50% of lone fathers are widowers. Way back in 1971 - before the onslaught of the 25 or more divorce reforms measures - only 20% of men became lone parents through divorce; the vast majority became so via widowhood. By 1991 widowhood had taken a back seat as a source of lone fatherhood accounting for 25% and divorce over 50% (OPCS Population Trends No.71 pp31. See also 'Lone Parenthood & Demographic Change', Haskey, and "Lone Parenthood: Coping with Constraints and Making Opportunities" published by Harvester Wheatsheaf 1991).

The Report makes no mention at this juncture that after bereavement a male spouse gets no state ‘widows’ pension and must continue to work or sign-on as if available for work (despite his domestic and child commitments).

Another criticism I have is in the decision to exclude children attending Boarding School. No distinction is even attempted between termly and weekly Boarders. And worse, they are categorised along with children put into residential care, hostels (Borstal, remand and prisons too, I shouldn't wonder). This not only builds in a bias but could be construed as bigotry and class prejudice of the very worst kind. Not perhaps the open mind one would have hoped for in such a survey.

Perhaps in excluding children at boarding school the research team presumed they were from intact family groups, or that parents who send their children away couldn't love them very much. The truth is children at boarding school come from both divorced and intact families.

In addition, I would have thought it obvious that Non-Resident Fathers have a great deal in common with the parents (fathers) of children at Boarding School in so much as they only see them at set times and for both parents and children the occasion is charged with anticipation. Brief re-unions are well remembered and the time spent together is regarded as precious, even priceless.

Invariably, it's the father that make the commitment and foots the bill to make boarding school possible. He alone makes the financial sacrifice to make it happen. That fatherly financial commitment cannot and should not be disdained, especially when one considers that female head of households (regardless of income) appear not to rate such educational expenditure as essential. In my many years associated with boarding schools I have never come across a mother making the same personal financial sacrifice.

What is also frequently neglected is that many of those who do attend boarding school do so on grants, bursaries etc that match parental contribution. Eton, for example, has a phenomenally high percentage of places paid for by its own foundation, and until recently Assisted Places helped many others on the borderline.

The Paper admits disappointment with the size of sample due to budgetary constraints and the response from those it was able to identify and enlist. If only FNF, ManKind Initiative or other Men’s' groups had been contacted the sample could have been much bigger than the final 590 interviews of Non-Resident Fathers. Any concern, from a purely statistical view point, that FNF or ManKind members may have presented a skewed basis could have been controlled for and, failing that, deployed as a very useful control group to validate results.

On page 3 the paper declares "There are men who don't wish to admit to paternity". The examples cited are those where paternity is doubted by the man, where the mother is confused as to whom she was sleeping with at the time, where the father knows the child lives in another/new household or where the mother is a married women and her husband is not the father.

In the above circumstances I should have thought it very natural, even understandable for men not to make waves.

Only later do we realise this paragraph relates to a mere 8% and 16% of men in survey results. But by then the damage has been done, the innuendo has done its work. Yes, there must always be (for the above reasons) a tiny minority of men who play down their paternity role. I'm sure the authors didn't intend to infer such a slight but the unfortunate wording ought to have carried a caution or prefix. But by the same token it is estimated that women give birth to between 20% and 40% children who are not fathered by their husband/partner. Suggestions that fathers should conduct a DNA paternity test to ensure wifely fidelity, and paternity, have been greeted in the media with howls of anger.

It may be minor point, but the reader is left confused as to whether the children in the other households relate to already married women, someone else's cohabitee, a girlfriend (who has now married someone else) or some other permutation of the above social arrangements.

Response levels from the different social groups within the Non-Resident Father category are eloquent in their betrayal. Single unmarried fathers were far more likely to refuse to participate in the survey in stark contrast to formerly cohabiting and married men who were most likely to co-operate (ref.: Patricia Morgan, The Warrior Class).

And as if to endorse matters, in Occupation Class terms the manual social class were also less likely to co-operate. This gives us a tantalising glimpse at what could be a mirror image of the female incidence of lone parenthood and the probability of such mothers successfully receiving, or not, regular CSA payments.

Elsewhere in the paper married fathers again demonstrate a greater interest in their offspring when compared with fathers from cohabiting relationships with single and unmarried fathers bottom of the heap at being the least likely to participate in paternal involvement.

On page 4 of the report some of the main characteristics of Non-Resident Fathers are itemised. These include a greater propensity to leave school at an earlier age, to be in the manual working social classes, be living in "social" housing, not to own a car, be unemployed (inactive) and have a low income. This applies to all fathers, regardless of martial status, who were contacted for the sample - irrespective of whether they subsequently took part in the survey or not.

These alarmingly mimic the traits found in children of lone mothers and one is left wondering if, by accident, the majority of the survey were composed of such children (see Profs. Halsey, N. Dennis and Patricia Morgan).

We know that children raised in Single Mother Households (SMH) distinctively tend to: leave school early; have poor or few academic attainments; have a lower social/occupation class than their father; be unemployed; be living in rented accommodation; be or have been in trouble with the law; for girls to be strong willed and boys weaker willed; and for girls to be more likely repeat their mothers social custom of birthing before or outside of marriage. All of which cries out for correlations to be made with existing survey results emanating from research into single mothers households.

In general terms the trends seen are those we have come to expect in the urban ghettos of America.

Social aberrations of repeating social behaviour, for so long measured on the female side of the social divide, appear to also add up from the other direction. In fact, one questions whether the word aberration is entirely appropriate here. Is it a function of a man's social class, i.e. his illegitimacy, his maturity, loss of identity and sense of purpose (see Norman Dennis) or simply a function of crude economics bludgeoning into a fragile social fabric ?

Do middle class white males yearn to be involved but find the price tag too high, whereas working class men simply don't bother or feel they've nothing really to contribute and so don't exhaust themselves emotionally ?

Is there an obvious, or only an instinctive and illusory, correlation here ?

When surveys again and again show children of single lone mothers disadvantaged whenever their father is shut out of their formative years could the reverse be true ? Namely that children become over-achievers when brought up by a single father and when contact or visitation rights are awarded to the ex-wife ? Is there research to support this hypothesis ?

The caveat, however, to all this must be that "contact", either by amount or intensity, is predetermined in large measure by background forces - and as such must surely rate the very highest priority by the generation after us.

Although the paper reports that "only a minority of fathers apart have children under school age" the tables reveal that the minority is in fact 21% (0-4 year olds). With 45% and 35% representing the 5-10 and 11-18 age groups respectively. Comparisons with the age/incidence of divorce is inevitable.

In asking, "why some fathers stay in contact with their children" the report, from our viewpoint, poses the wrong question. From a father's perspective the question should be "How is it that so many men remain in contact despite all the grief and obstacles thrown our way". One could very easily take issue with the assertion that it was Non-Resident Fathers who had to "overcome" certain practical and emotional barriers to see their children. To then add the phrase if he is "to function co-operatively as a parent with his ex ¬partner" simply serves to underline the prosaic disconnection of authors and public.

Is it all down to men ? Do women play no part in the proceedings ? Are they merely passive spectators to the problems men haphardously appear to inflict on themselves ?

From the sample it is evident that fathers biggest grievance (bigger even than the CSA) is the difficulty in trying to see their children. Contact was made in 47% of cases with only 21% of Non-Resident Father not seeing their children within the last year.

This alone must suffocate the cries from the pro-CSA lobby, stifle the pro-unmarried mothers’ brigade of Anna Coote, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt - not forgetting the motley crew of prejudiced politicians in "sensible shoes".

Intriguingly, this is reported as a much higher incidence of contact than recorded by previous surveys. In fact the discrepancy sent the researchers scurrying off to see where and why the differences could have arisen. Of particular concern was the oft-quoted Bradshaw & Millar (1991) which found that lone mothers reported that only 25% of lone fathers had contact once a week, and 31% had not had contact for over a year, 40% of fathers had "lost contact" (as if it were a misplaced door key) with their children within 2 years of separation or birth of their child.

The switched-on and up-to-speed amongst you have probably guessed by now how the anomaly arose. Yes, Bradshaw & Millar's data was culled from single mothers only and a female perspective ! Even after the York researchers statistically tweaked for variables such as marital status at child birth and length of lone parenthood considerable differences still remained that can, I believe, only be reconciled by ascribing them to attitudes.

Such discrepancies have since been found in other major US studies underscoring yet again the ability of lone mothers to skew data regardless of the consequences.

Indeed, in a subsequent letter the University of York concludes (and therefore not in my first draft) "that it is difficult to reconcile the figures" regarding the amount of fatherly contact and "that someone must be being economical with the truth". (Addendum :: Absent Fathers ?, Bradshaw, J., Stimson, C., Skinner, C. and Williams, J. (1999) , Routledge, London).

The radical differences found by the University of York's report concerning fatherly contact with their children is shown in T3.

Clearly, not only do mothers of a particular kind want fathers out of the picture but are determined to keep him out by duping researchers with exaggerations that appear to make fatherly disinterest "official".

One can't help feeling touched by the pathos of it all. On the one hand mothers are prepared to use fair means or foul to keep their children’s father at bay while on the other, almost desperate fathers cherish each contact no matter how trivial or fleeting.

Fathers find the world blind and deaf to their needs. No wonder they find themselves literally and metaphorically buried under a relentless avalanche of feminist and official dismissiveness. The contact they so cherish is constantly demeaned as having no meaning or consequence to the child.

A glance at the summary on page 12 (see below) shows the tragedy that is the deal dealt to Dads and what they must live with. Suspend belief for a moment and reverse the genders. Can anyone imagine the heartache if the same time allotments applied to mothers, year in, year out ?

Comparative data outcomes in post divorce scenarios can be made by referencing "The Emperors New Clothes" (1997) a study undertaken by the Cheltenham Group.

Children, it would appear, are used yet again as weapons to gain superior advantage. In the divorce process they become unwitting economic weapons in the blitzkrieg for assets. In the post-divorce scenario they are elevated to traitor status should they show feelings toward their father.

This paper does not attempt to discuss the emotive subject of psychological blackmail or emotional abuse known to many of us as PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome).

The researchers then postulate what could be the barriers to contact and without itemising them but go on to discuss the work of Seltzer (1991) in the US who suggests a link between contact and maintenance. In Australia Sutton (1996) has also shown a positive link between access and income but suggests a further connection after that of relationship with one's ex-partner and the sense of loss of control (presumably for the man). The York survey bore out Seltzer and Sutton findings but found when comparing different types of fathers (single, married, cohabiting) it is the simplest of factors that influence outcomes, e.g. whether the father lives less than 3 miles or more than 25 miles away from his children, whether he was married at the time of birth, his age and if employed.

The York report confirms these earlier findings in their sample but perhaps rather incongruously, also found that Non-Resident Fathers who have good weekly contact or relations with their own families, e.g. seeing his own mother, positively affected outcomes. This could perhaps be correlated with observations already made concerning social background (see page 2 of the Report).

These findings parallel in part a survey conducted by the Cheltenham Group (The Emperors Clothes) which surveyed attitudes of men after exposure to the divorce regime.

In the US, the Bureau of the Census records the compliance rate of US fathers paying child support as ordered by the courts as follows:

In other words, American fathers with joint custody (shared parenting) were paying maintenance in 90.2% of cases. The compliance rate dropped the less the father was allowed to see his children until right at the bottom fathers with no rights whatsoever paid maintenance in only 45% of cases.

It can be argued that much of the emotional turmoil and administrative costs (CSA) could be slashed if custody and Access were linked to payments. It is truly remarkable that even in the worse case scenario, i.e. 45%, the tenacious bond that binds fathers with their children is still so apparent. Maintenance payments and contact with their children are inextricably linked because of all the fathers who failed to pay the ordered maintenance payments 86% came from those who had no visitation rights.

In the UK no father has the automatic or enforceable right to see his children after divorce. Few people are aware especially politicians (upon whom we all depend) that a father may apply for it and it may be granted - but he has no statutory protection or privilege.

It would be wrong and perhaps crude to attempt a comparison but using the data from Summary 12 the situation in the UK and the US appears to be thus:-

Then, as if pursuing a Pulitzer prize, the report states, "One question these findings raise is whether this level of involvement with children is any less than a resident father would have !" (their exclamation mark, not mine). And then goes on to adds insult to injury by declaring in the same paragraph, "The contact of the Non-Resident Father may not be as regular but the time spent with the child may be longer and the quality may be better". The “comfort factor” for a child to sleep in a home knowing their fathers presence offers them total reassurance is completely overlooked.

For those of you who aren't yet reeling from this teenage logic let me explain by way of an analogy; When you're being chased by a ravenous grizzly bear you're grateful to find a sturdy log cabin and lock yourself in. But when someone pushes you into a cell, locks the door and throws away the key you're a prisoner.

In the alternative: If this contact is as good, if not better than resident fathers get then all fathers should be granted custody and only mothers should be awarded the privilege of this superior quality time. By allowing only visits on prescribed days their contact will be of better quality than spending all day with them. After all, both they and the children (not to mention the economy, women's rights and employment) will be all the better for it - and Harriet Harman will have proved a point.

PART 2.

Rather surprisingly the report sample found that only 43% of fathers had been contacted by the CSA. Of those assessed only 39% had experienced an increase in payments whilst 27% had a lower figure agreed (base of 107). However, and for 4 pages, the Report strongly condemns the CSA as being "counter-productive", "appalling" and ill-conceived". It rounds on the manner of introduction "with hardly any research having been undertaken into the circumstances of Non-Resident Fathers".

It describes its administration as "chaotic" and defying all definitions of fairness. The CSA it continues is based on the principal that "biological father’s absolute and unreserved responsibility" toward their children. In fact the last part of this report is a "must" for students, devotees and campaigners against the CSA.

The average weekly maintenance per child was found to be £26.00 (£16.00 if the father was unemployed). The majority of NRF (Non-Resident Fathers) gave informal monetary help and gave more if they were not paying maintenance regularly. This would perhaps reflect the constraining confines they themselves operated within. However, 28% of NRF had for one reason or another never paid maintenance. This finding is in keeping with historical trends and of the court system page 9 immediately prior to the introduction of the CSA. Of the sample, 59% had handed over their house and were found to be less likely to be paying maintenance than the remainder (who had settled with cash, insurance and pensions).

NRF who are either currently married or cohabiting are some 150% more likely to be paying family maintenance than unmarried NRF.

If the NRF was over 24 years of age when he first became a father he will be 478% more likely to pay maintenance than if he were under 20 and not married.

Where the NRF has 2 or more children he is 163% more likely to have contact with his children.

Overall NRF are 300% more likely to have continuing contact with their children than no contact at all.

There was wholesale (62%) dissatisfaction with the CSA and "the formula" used for calculating paternal contributions.

(1) This is systematic of the system. It would be especially true of Interim Assessments where a typical assessment would be £85 per week/per child only at Finally Assessment for it to be reduced to the national average of around say £35 per week /per child).

(2) Re-marriage can be undertaken as advocated and prescribed in the 1969 Act but second wives live out their lives in relative poverty, if not penury.

(3) Couples who had made satisfactory arrangements found their settlements overturned by a ruling which compelled husbands to pay maintenance in addition to the settlement.

These findings are in line with a survey conducted by the Cheltenham Group (The Emperors Clothes) which went on to detail the scale of asset transfer and psychological impact on men of fatherlessness and the divorce process.

All the above are very interesting and, with time, could be worked up into an alternative cost saving strategy. Items 1 to 5 reflect deeply embedded cultural beliefs pre-dating our century. The equivalent in the 18th and 19th century was bereavement when re-partnering meant the acceptance by the new partner of any and all baggage from the previous union. If it was possible then what has changed, men or the fiscal and taxation regimes ?

Items 6 to 10 are perhaps indicative of reactions to events outside the control of Non-Resident Father calling for reassessments. Biting the bullet and limiting any maintenance payments to say only 3 years is an approach that could make good the promises of the original 1969 Reform Act, which intended that divorcing couples should be capable of remarriage but never delivered.

In an age of equality where women make up 50% of the current labour market it is perhaps anachronistic to insist that "biological fathers have an absolute and unreserved responsibility" to financially support children.

This belittles the role and ability of women and is yet another example of treating women as children. It takes away their power of decision. It insulates them from culpability, responsibility and accountability. It emphatically implies that they have no choice, no input and no control over their circumstances - in this case, when and with whom they become pregnant. Women are now in control of their bodies and we must adjust to a new situation.

Is it not more symptomatic of the real situation for men to be told some weeks later (and too late) that the woman has decided to be a mother and that henceforth he is to be a father. The rights to abort or negotiate the decision are out of the man's hands. After all, wasn't it trumpeted by the activists that the Abortion Act would, at last, give women real control over their bodies ?

An egalitarian society must come to terms with the inversion of the dogma. If it is applicable to fathers, then which of the following propositions apply to wives and partners ?

a). "That no biological mother shall ever have the absolute and unreserved responsibility for their children".

b). "That all biological mothers shall always have absolute and unreserved responsibility for their children".

Could it be that society's defence mechanism has been turned in on itself and that by default women can now exercise capricious control over men ?

Or could it be that the old magical incantation of blaming and burdening men for everything has outlived its usefulness and that a new mantra is required ?

Forgiveness is a powerful thing - forgiving him for abandoning me as a young child allowed me to let go of the negative feelings and anger and move into the present with hope, hope that we would find a way to have a relationship here and now. While I haven't forgotten about his actions, they no longer define or nag at me - I've released that hurt. I've learned that forgiveness is all about freeing yourself - not necessarily the person that hurt you.

Getting to know my father continues to be a joyful and profound experience for both of us. I'm finding we are very much alike in some ways. I feel comfortable talking to him about most anything, my anger, feeling cheated, my challenges, my questions - which have been penetrating and tough....but he doesn't stick his head in the sand - we talk about it, even when it's extremely uncomfortable. We laugh and joke about this thing called life, politics, grand children, good times and bad. I hope he has a strong ear...I have 30 years worth of stuff to tell him - LOL. While I'm still a little cautious with my feelings....he's beginning to feel like an old shoe, comfortable and cozy.

He's planning to return this September for another visit and I'm quite excited-because this time there won't be an anxiety associated with it - we can just kick back and enjoy our time together.

I'm so thankful I made that call last November and I'd like to encourage everyone else that has "unfinished business" with a family member to make an attempt to mend your relationship......you might find a priceless treasure.

Related posts:

Reuniting With Father Part 2

The Child Inside

Reuniting With Father

Domestic violence throws a real curve ball into almost every aspect of already difficult cases.  But in my experience, the very hardest situation to navigate is when the domestic violence perpetrator is the parent of the children involved.  Both of my current client families fit this profile. 

This is tough from a sheer safety planning standpoint, because family law, particularly custody and visitation laws, were not written to accommodate domestic violence.  In fact, in my jurisdiction, custody and visitation statutes and case law have been interpreted and developed to give parents every possible opportunity to foster a parent/child relationship, even when there has been past abuse by that parent toward the children.  

In this post, I identify abusers as male/fathers.  This is not always the case, of course, but it is true that domestic violence perpetrators are overwhelmingly male, and I have only worked with families where the abuser was male.  In this post, I'm not trying to rule out the reality that some abusers are female.  I'm trying to write sentences that avoid being more about gender neutrality than the point I'm trying to make.

The custody and visitation laws are geared much more toward parental rights than child trauma.  The result is that the laws do a pretty terrible job of providing for safety during visitations when domestic violence perpetrators are the visiting parents.  There can be mandated supervision for visitations, and visitations at neutral locations, and these precautions are better than nothing.  Still, a savvy perpetrator can use visitation to force contact with his former partner, to root out key information the victim has worked hard to keep secret, to intimidate and initiate threats, to scare and abuse children, and to manipulate children into giving up information that compromises the family's safety.  The laws certainly never anticipated an abusive parent who would use child visitations solely as a tactic to terrorize his/her former partner and children.  And that does happen sometimes.

What the laws do seem to accurately acknowledge, however, is the existence and importance of the intense bond between parents and children, no matter how flawed a parent might be.  This is often a big piece of what makes the visits so traumatizing for the children:  just when things get settled down and they've negotiated the separation from the abuser, the visits get them all keyed up again.  Relationships with parents are high stakes.  The fact that a parent is dangerous does not remove the attachment the child has already built with that person.  So the visits continue to happen; the kids get riled up.  And from what I've seen, most of the time the kids won't give up those visits for the world, even if they say they hate their dad.  At least their dad still shows up, however perverse his motives and behavior may be.

Several months ago, I was watching Bill Cosby promote his new book on Meet the Press.  While I expressly decline to endorse Mr. Cosby's broader agenda, he said something very poignant about fatherless children on that show: 

If you have this generational, fatherless situation, unwed father or whatever, but the male is not there, then it, it registers on another person, on, on the child as abandonment...Somewhere in my life a person called my father has not shown up, and I feel very sad about this because I don’t know if I’m ugly, I don’t know what the reason is.  And so there’s a great deal that a person has to put up with. (emphasis added)

Bill Cosby's observations match my own when it comes to children's perceptions of their fathers.  Children want their fathers in their lives, and it's confusing and painful when their fathers are suddenly gone.  Children of domestic violence are often not entirely fatherless; once again domestic violence throws a curve ball.  Often they grow up for a while knowing their fathers.  Then, if their mothers properly protect them, they may be removed from their fathers suddenly.  So they are fatherless, but they had a taste of having a father.  It's almost worse, except that when they are old enough there is some explanation for why Dad had to leave that may provide comfort.

My current client's nine-year-old daughter describes herself as a "daddy's girl," though she has not seen her father in over a year.  She writes him letters and tries to send them to her aunt, hoping they get to Dad.  She's talked to him on the phone a few times.  When I asked her what she would change if she could change anything about her family, she said she would see her dad every day.

Another time, I was working with an escaping survivor whose violent boyfriend was locked up.  I brought over the internet jail record, including his mug shot, so we could anticipate his release date and safety plan.  The little kids (under five) saw the picture and started jumping around, all excited.  The mother started crying quietly.  Later on in the case, I saw the mug shot taped up on the three-year-old child's bedroom wall by his bed.

Children want to have fathers, and even abused mothers want their children to have fathers.  This doesn't go away, even when the fathers (or the rest of the family) must go away.  It's a difficult thing when the only workable safety option is in direct conflict with the only possible emotional option.  Most of the time, I've got to hand it to these mothers for handling it as well as they do.  They'll explain that Dad just isn't safe right now, or Dad is locked up, or we just cannot be with him.  They usually say that Dad still loves the kids.  Sometimes they try to come up with ways to work the supervised visitations or maintain some sort of parent/child communication.  This gets dicey with dangerous individuals, but I understand why mothers go to the lengths they go to.

    I used to be a huge whore. Odd way to start a blog, right? I don't think so. I lost my virginity at the age of 17 and in the 4 years since then, I've slept with 14 people. 11 men and 3 women. I think of my sexual life like a can of Pringles. Yeah, nobody gets that reference. Y'know, "Once you pop, the fun don't stop?" I have to explain that to everyone. Anyhow, I USED TO be a huge whore. Not so much after I met Chris.

   I met Chris in January of 2007. I met him online, at a site called Adult Friend Finder. (I tell anyone who asks that I met him on MySpace...seems less shady.) We met face to face in the middle of January, when I went to his house, 5 minutes away from my own. Actually, his parents' house...he just lives there. I walked into his garage where he was working on his Jeep; his "baby." I immediately wanted to leave, because 1. He was ugly as Hell. And 2. I just got an ooky feeling talking to him. But, I stayed, because I hate to be rude. We started talking about mostly mundane things, the weather, our hobbies. We went inside, sat on the couch and continued talking. We only talked for about 10 minutes when he looked at me and gave me the smoothest line ever.

"So...you wanna mess around?"

   Um...yeah. Those EXACT words. I didn't know what to say to that. Would you? I gave him my "Uh..what?" face and we sat in uncomfortable silence for a few minutes. I realized that I needed to do or say something, so I made my move. God only knows why!  We had sex on his parents' couch, (of course we DIDN'T use a condom) and afterwards we, yet again, sat in uncomfortable silence. I started to go outside to have a cigarette and he followed me out. We were standing in the snow, I was smoking and he was just looking at me. He told me, "Y'know, your eyes change color, do you know that? They were blue before and now they're green." I told him that I never knew that and we started talking about the weather, playfully arguing about the pros and cons of snow and the cold. I really wanted to leave, so I told him that I had to go to work and left unceremoniously.

   The rest of the day, I kept thinking about Chris and when we would hang out again. He was attractive to me after I slept with him. Most men are. He seemed charming and sweet, very loveable. Just a really good guy.

   I have never been more wrong in my entire life.

When you look out of your window
Tell me what do you see
If it's a world without a father
Then you're looking at me
My respect to the mother's that be holdin it down
But it sure would be nice to have my daddy around.

All I need is one mic (one mic)
I know you can see
I'm not a rapper
But there's some dudes that are just like me
Everytime you took a picture with you and your family
It was only two people and it's supposed to be 3
It's supposed to be me asking
(Why's the sky blue when I grow up I wanna be like you)
Yo daddy can you teach me how to
(Tie my shoes can I go with you to work so I can see what you do?)
Lemme see what you do
So I can love my kids too
But you didn't stick around was that too much to ask of you?
Too much to get a blueprint? (No)
Too much to show the way? (No)
That's the reason why this building is not finished still today (We're lost boys)
So you wanna believe that (My daddy's coming back he didn't forget about me)
Like a child after school
You sit and you wait (I know he's gonna come)
My dad is 78.

For 11 years I've been living here
I've seen mamma cry more than 11 tears
Watchin mamma see daddy while he slips away
Does Jesus really hear kids when they pray?

Mama's working 2 jobs
She can't do it alone
She shouldn't have to she didn't get "pregnant" on her own
And I know that baby's mamma drama
Brothas it's real
But before you close the door
Don't forget how it feels
Remember

Daddy missed my game and I made a touchdown
I won the talent show but you weren't around
If a girl breaks my heart what do I do with this pain (and one more thing daddy)
Can you tell me my name? I need my daddy!

I find this interesting considering this person has never been in a situation such as mine with an ex but feels competent to tell me when I'm out of order in dealing with mine.

My ex has over the last eighteen years consistently demonstrated that he had no intentions of being a full-fledged father to my son. As a matter of fact, he was ecstatic when he found out I remarried as he felt that he was somehow relieved of his parental duties. The only positive I have to say about my ex is that he did pay court ordered and garnished child support over the 18 year period of my son's life other than that he has not been much help during very difficult times when he was needed.

My son suffered years of feeling abandoned and unloved by his father who lives in the same town with us. He never attended any of my sons school events or bothered to check on his academics. When my son was in a hospital, I notified his father but he never showed. I felt hurt for my son when this occurred as I know how it feels to have a so called father that washes their hands of you - mine did.

Honestly, I thought about sending an announcement to him purely out of spite to say "My baby made it without you", but when I thought about the recipient, I realized that he was probably too "slow" to get it so I didn't bother.

I struggled along with my husband to raise my son and for that I am proud. As far as sending an invitation to an a$$hole that never behaved as a father - I don't think so.

To my dear friends - there are some things you simply don't understand so thanks for your advice, but in this case I'll defer to my own experiences.

Although women have done wonderful jobs at raising children, male children desperately need the male role model in the family so they can learn how to be men. Women certainly don't have the knowledge or understanding to teach boys to be men. A woman can tell him what she thinks it is to be a man, however, it is not something a mother can model for her son.

For years I've wondered why fathers don't have that same inherent attachment, obligation and genuine love for their own offspring. Is it because mother's assume all responsibility and let men completely off the hook? Is it because some males can't separate the feelings they have for their children from the one's that have from their "Baby's Mamma?" Or is that some fathers are simply to self-absorbed and incapable of truly loving another individual that cannot give them something in return?