The Preamble to The Father’s Bill of Rights places double emphasis on the fact that children need both parents in the first two paragraphs. This post explores the basis for society’s unbalanced emphasis on a child’s need for a mother and new insight into the need of children for fathers.

“A successful society respects the roles, influence and experience of children to both fathers and mothers.”

Genesis of the Primary Caretaker Presumption: John Bowlby, a British psychologist, started the ball rolling on the importance to children of attachment to a primary caretaker Click here to learn more about John Bowlby’s history and legacy.. I emphasize the “a” in the singular because he drew all his conclusions without questioning whether a singular attachment was both a necessary and a complete basis for the inferences he later made. Bowlby coined the phrase, “primary caretaker,” based on his assumption that there was only one — hence the word “primary” in his analysis. Bowlby was from Great Britain and his childhood took place during a time and social structure that routinely separated young children, not only from their fathers but their mothers. In the middle to upper levels of the socio-economic strata, young children had nannies who served the function of nurturer and were generally shipped off to live away from their entire families at very young ages. Bowlby’s own childhood reflected this social tradition.

Social Support for the Primary Caretaker Presumption: Given this background, it is little surprise that, as an adult, Bowlby dedicated his professional research to proving his own experience — that small children need secure emotional connection with nurturing adults and that without it, they can actually die. Bowlby also showed how devastating insecure attachment can be to children. Click here to read about insecure attachment.

Increasing Attention on Children’s Need for Both Parents: Over time, family courts have developed what is known as “the primary caretaker presumption,” based on Bowlby’s work, in deciding who shall have custody of the child. They have done so by adopting the incomplete basis for an understanding of attachment. Now, child psychiatrists are calling into question the underpinnings of this assumption. Kyle Pruett, M.D. Talks About Why Kids Need Dad.

It’s time for our society — at all levels and in all places, including the legal system — to make decisions about children’s needs based on the totality of their recognized needs, not on outdated, incomplete presumptions.

Michigan fathers are fighting for a state law that would make shared custody the norm. Similar legislation has been introduced in Maryland but has never gotten very far. Parent’s Equal Access Called a Civil Rights Issue. On the one hand, I don’t have much use for any standard, one-size-fits all custody legislation. On the other hand, something has to be done to get past the “primary caretaker” assumption in parental fitness decisions.

The problem with the debate over mandatory joint custody statutes is that having a “one-size-fits all” standard — whether it is for the primary caretaker OR for a presumption of joint custody — ignores the real problem. The real problem in any custody case that goes to court and gets litigated through the legal system is that families who end up in this situation are already in trouble. The parents, one or both of them, are unable to resolve conflict.

Joint custody and shared parenting IS the best thing for kids, but ONLY if the parents can put aside the conflict between them when it comes to working things out for the kids. This is not the kind of family legislation or the court intervention that applies it is designed to address.

What is needed is both legislation and administrative court processes and support that directly identifies and addresses conflict in divorcing families. We need to throw out “one-size-fits all” legislation and decision-making — and that includes both the primary caretaker presumption AND the joint custody presumption — and focus instead on rewarding the parent — of whatever gender — who shows a demonstrated ability to put aside his or her own interests on behalf of the children. Custody decisions really do all go right back to that old biblical story of Solomon. We need legislation and decision-making that identifies the parent who is willing to let go of his or her “rights” in order to avoid cutting the baby in half.

That takes time, it takes attention, and it takes money to pay judges who are willing to invest their time and attention in this way. It also takes money to support a family court structure that provides the services needed to identify the “real” parent — the one who will give up just about anything to avoid harming the babies.

In Maryland, the “best interests” standard is not found in the statute books, but in a series of appellate decisions. This past session, Del. Kathleen Dumais, a legislator and family law attorney from Montgomery County, Maryland, introduced a bill that would put many of the elements from the court decisions currently being used by the courts into a statute. The bill did not pass the Judiciary Committee in March 2008, but will probably be introduced again in the next session. Here is a link to the text of the bill: House Bill 1147: Family Law - Child Custody Determinations. As written, the bill would have significant impact on judicial decision-making in Maryland. On the plus side, it would set somewhat clearer boundaries within which judges make decisions about custody. On the minus side, it still leaves a lot of latitude for judges to make a decision on a basis that isn’t specific.

I’m a big believer in good legislation addressing family issues. However, for a bill this comprehensive, it’s important to have clear definitions for “fuzzy” concepts. This bill is a good start, but it needs some definitions. Stay tuned, because when the bill comes up again in the next session, there may be an opportunity to have some input on defining some of the terms in the legislation. Feel free to email me with your suggestions.

John Prine linked my site to his. I’m honored. John is one of the best musical storytellers of my geezer generation. Here’s a You Tube clip of the song that motivated my letter to him. In Spite of Ourselves.

Check out John’s site, the music and the artist are well worth the attention!

Letter to John Prine.

P.S. Thank you, John Prine!

One of the toughest things faced by attorneys who advocate for fathers is the biases of judges. Every human being on the planet has biases. Even judges. The way it’s supposed to work is that by the time the judge gets to the bench, he or she is supposed to have enough self-awareness of his or her biases to know what they are and prevent them from influencing decision-making. That’s the idea. We all know it doesn’t work that way in reality.

The problem isn’t that judges have biases, the problem is, it’s often impossible to tell what they are or how they will show up until you’re in the courtroom.

Some judges do their job by the book. This means they do their best to understand and apply the law according to the rules of the state they are in. When a good “by the book” judge is hearing a case, his or her biases are kept in the background of the decision-making process. When a not-so-good “by the book” judge is hearing a case, the biases will lurk in the background and be impossible to nail down for an appellate challenge.

Then, there’s the activist judge. The biases of this kind of judge are pretty much in everyone’s face. But they are on the bench so there isn’t much a lawyer can do to avoid them. The good news is, if they aren’t careful to apply the law properly, they get reversed a lot on appeal. But appeal take time and money that many fathers don’t have at the end of a long custody battle. Usually, these judges are folks whose hearts are in the right place as far as families go. In too many cases, however, these judges have some personal power issue that drives them to want to play god with other peoples’ lives. Here’s a link to an Ohio judge whose decision-making seems to have come from the “god” perspective: Ohio Judge Jails Father for Teen Failure.

This case was in juvenile court, which means judges get a lot more latitude to tell families how to behave, but I’ve seen similar things happen in family court too. It’s this kind of decision that makes many men stay in unhealthy relationships because they’re afraid that if they leave, this is the kind of treatment they’ll get . . . because they are men. It’s this kind of decision-making I fight against every day.

Venus: The Dark Side is a new book that addresses a phenomenon I’ve seen more and more frequently in my practice: predatory, dangerous, manipulative women who hide behind a cloak of “feminism” so they can abuse their partners, spouses and children. Not long ago, I was waiting for a hearing to begin in one of my cases where the opposing party personifies this kind of woman. I was chatting with an expert witness who was a psychologist and asked him if he was seeing more of this phenomenon in his practice. He dodged the question.

This book is well worth your while if you’re hooked up with one of these people. It’s even more worthwhile if you have a teen or twenties son. Get it. Read it. Pass it on to someone else who needs it. Give it to your boys. No need to perpetuate this nightmare into the next generation. These women maim and kill just like the men who have gotten so much more attention in our culture.

Hey guys, here’s a blogger who contends the worst support offenders are moms. Maybe the reason there isn’t as much press on deadbeat moms is because, more often than not, they’re able to gain primary residential custody of the kids. How about an experiment: we turn the tables and start giving fathers custody as much as we do mothers and see how many mothers pay support. I’m willing to bet we’d be hearing screaming from all directions. Probably a lot of hoorah about “women’s rights” and how the system is so unfair to women. And I’m betting legislators around the country would be running to the state capitols to push through new legislation attempting to make our broken system of child support a little better. Check out Amy Alkon’s blog post on the topic: Deadbeat Dads Who Are Actually Moms.

Even 18th Century Fox has featured the issue in its news: Moms Can Be Deadbeats Too. I get a lot of calls from fathers who want help dealing with this issue, but I can’t take very many of them. Unfortunately, by the time someone gets to this point, he has very few resources for litigation. Time for the issue to be taken up by legislators.