One
of the most significant battles in the 2002 gender wars was the role
and rights of fathers -- especially when families have been ruptured by
divorce.
We can expect the cry for "fathers' rights" to ring loudly throughout
2003, as men demand that society reconsiders such issues as child
support and child custody. It will not necessarily be women who men
oppose in this fight. Men are confronting a governmental Goliath that
has been called "the
child abuse industry." In doing so, they defend not only fathers' rights but also those of mothers and children.
Some
family situations clearly require legal intercession. Domestic violence
may be an excellent reason to call the police. If a divorced parent
refuses to pay agreed upon child support, civil court is an appropriate
remedy. But government is no longer merely a last resort: It has
assumed the role of surrogate parent, sometimes with greater rights
than real parents.
The child
protective services industry includes government bureaucracies -- e.g.
federal and state child protective and support agencies -- that can
track the minutia of a child's life: from school records to hospital
visits, from every cent the family spends to the cleanliness of their
kitchen floors. The industry consists of social workers, judges,
bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, therapists, commentators and others
whose income depends on processing family concerns.
The industry is often dated back to the Mondale Act of 1974
-- also known as the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) --
which offered federal matching funds to states with child abuse
prevention and prosecution programs. The act was aimed at preventing
child abuse, but it also established huge financial incentives to
states and state agencies to uncover abuse, without providing any
checks or balances to protect parents who are being wrongfully accused.
In
crassly commercial terms, abused and neglected children are the source
of a multibillion-dollar industry. The agencies and services that
comprise the child protective system in the U.S. are a $12 billion a
year business, and fathers who have been tagged "abusive" or
"negligent" are primary targets.
Several aspects of the evolving CAPTA have been criticized for encouraging false accusations without accountability:
-- Vague and ambiguous definitions of child abuse allow the term to be used subjectively by accusers and investigators.
-- Those accused are not informed of their rights nor given due process.
--
Under mandatory reporting laws, teachers, police officers, medical
personnel and some others can face criminal penalties and the
suspension of licenses if they fail to report suspected abuse. Thus,
the reporting of frivolous or hysterical accusations.
-- Charges can be leveled through anonymous hotlines.
-- Immunity from liability is extended to child welfare workers and to false accusers.
And,
so, the cry of "false reports!" began to rise, especially from fathers
who said child abuse accusations were being used as negotiating tools
in divorce disputes. The system was constructed to facilitate such
accusations and to hobble those against whom they were leveled.
Under
the Clinton administration, the child abuse industry bloated. The
famous slogan, "It takes a village to raise a child" captured the
approach. Child raising did not take two parents. It did not take a
father. It took a village which, in practical terms, translated into a
lot of government supervision.
The
village viewed fathers with suspicion. For example, in 1996, as part of
a drastic overhaul of the welfare system, Clinton tackled the problem
of "deadbeat dads."
He declared, "If every parent paid the child support they should, we
could move 800,000 women and children off welfare immediately."
Thus, enforcing severe child support policies against fathers
gave states the financial incentive of reducing welfare rolls and,
later, of having payments go directly to their agencies. Again, fathers
cried "abuse,"
especially those who faced criminal charges because the amounts assessed
were unreasonable or because they were unable to pay due to factors
such as unemployment.
The bureaucratic "village" continued to grow.
In 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act
promoted adoption of the many children now stranded in foster care. The
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services declared in a Nov. 24,
1999, press release that the goal was "to double by 2002 the number of
children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently
placed."
Again, there was a
financial incentive for states to remove children from homes. The ASFA
(Sec. 201) offered states "$4,000 to $6,000" for each child adopted
beyond the state's "base number." It also provided "technical
assistance" to help states raise those numbers.
Although
the fathers' rights movement is often characterized as men versus
women, it is as accurate to view the movement as men opposing
bureaucracies that act as custodial parents.
Fathers are fighting not merely for their own interests but also for the well being of children. Reports and studies
indicate that children from fatherless homes are more likely to commit
suicide, abuse drugs, turn to crime and end up in prison.
Moreover, the "custodial" bureaucracies are not necessarily child-friendly. In Florida, 5-year-old Rilya Wilson was missing for 16 months
before the state CPS noticed, partly due to false visitation reports
filed by her social worker. The ensuing scandal revealed that Florida
could not find some 1,000 children "in its care." A superficial search of public records by a newspaper turned up children whom CPS could not find.
The
fathers' rights movement may be the best chance North America has to
return sanity and decency to family law, policies and procedures. It is
necessary, if not for the sake of adults involved, then for the sake of
the children.