Missing Fathers and the Children Left Behind

As Published in the Fall 2021 Contemporary Family Magazine

Divorce, one simple word attached to countless damaging emotions and catastrophic effects. It is easy to look from the outside and see two adults navigating through the legal battlefield, ripping away their once “loving” relationship in the name of cutting ties yet, it is the lack of post-divorce acknowledgment of the family unit that leaves lasting devastation throughout society. Current family laws surrounding divorce/separation procedures do not provide relief from these negative outcomes, disproportionally affecting Fathers and their parental responsibilities. Does the United States government need to re-think its approach to the modern family structure? Yes. Does the US need to examine the societal cost of having a 50% divorce rate[1] and take aggressive policy action to mitigate the effects of Fatherlessness? Yes. Sensible Family Court reform throughout the Country will reduce the negative statistical outcomes for the 27.4 million children[2] produced by undesirable court rulings. Family Court law reform will prevent the onslaught of financial and emotional turmoil by navigating away from the Family Court system and Child Support Enforcement Unit (CSEU), and lead with a presumption that both Mother and Father will be granted equal parental connection with their children therefore, decreasing stressful litigation and poor social products.

To begin, in New York State custody agreements for Fathers are the standard 20%-30%[3]; equating to every other weekend and a single dinner visit per week, 2 weeks’ vacation time in the summer months and a specific holiday schedule. This idea of “visitation” or only parenting 20-30% (Change, C. 2018) of the time yet, providing 17-31% of their income to the family is unbalanced and harmful to the family unit. Why is it acceptable that fathers provide financial stability and support to the family yet, maintain a visitor status or have their parental rights reduced to four days a month? If society wants to eliminate the sexist gender roles of yesterday, then we should be promoting equal parenting time and equal financial accountability from both parents. In a survey by Custody Change, only 20 States in the US grant the presumption of equal parenting time between mothers and fathers, this is a difference of 100 days per year between highest ranking States and the lowest States. 100 days of lost parenting time in relation to Tennessee’s 21% granted visitation rights to fathers is only 80 days per year or 6.6 days a month spent with their children (Change, C., 2018). Placing sole parental responsibility on the custodial parent (which is 80% of the time the mother)[4] is proving to be an unfair burden on “single” mothers. The unbalanced parental workload remains to bare mothers as the lesser earner, thus effecting her ability to work longer hours, travel, work overtime or weekends without the high cost of using a childcare provider; introvertly cancelling out her earnings. These status quo custody arraignments have long been credited to the Tender Year’s doctrine. This 19th century common law was based on societal effects of mothering, acknowledging that mothers are the most equipped at parenting young children. Although most states have eliminated the Tender Years doctrine after several challenges to the Supreme Court, i.e., Frontiero v. Richardson (411 U.S. 677, 686), People ex Rel. Watts v. Watts, 77 Misc. 2d 178, 183 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1973). The societal norm of mothers offering more benefits than father during early childhood still exist in Family Court by the continual of biased custody orders set upon “The Best interest of the Child” standards.  Additionally, the issues arising from the unfair custody rulings, is one of fairness and Constitutional protections. The holding for Frontiero accounts for current law surrounding leaves of absences for both mothers and fathers to care for an infant see, Danielson v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 358 F. Supp. 22. Yet, Family Court Judges refuse to see custody as a matter of Constitutional right or that both parties have equal claim to child rearing instead, Courts hide behind a “Best Interest of the Child” standard that allows complete and full discretion by the sitting Judge. The original intent of the 2010 amendment; New York State’s Domestic Relations Law (DRL) was to, “there was a purposeful attempt to make the legislation devoid of any “unnecessary or ambiguous verbiage…eliminate the bitterness and hostility engendered by allegations of misconduct [and] to eliminate the cost and delay of divorce litigation” (Sondra Miller, No Fault Clear and Simple, N.Y. L.J., Dec. 3, 2010). While it was the Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York that drafted this amendment, it remains unclear what the intent was regarding custody laws stemming from no-fault divorce. The removal of fault in civil divorce cases paved the way for a spouse to remove themselves from a civil contract without the burden of proof. Although women file for divorce 69% of the time (Association, 2015). This data shows a growing trend with women leaving the family unit yet, with the increase of no-fault divorce; DRL 240 regarding child custody remains fault based. Practical application of DRL 240 allows terms and or reasons of the divorce when factoring custody between the parties. If no-fault was introduced by women to promote a safer less trial based approached to reduce the stresses of divorce on the family, then why hasn’t DRL 240 been amended to reach those same conclusions? Why can a woman walk away from a marriage with a no-fault divorce and then petition family court to “fight” over the custody of the children? If divorce is seen has a one-party contract that can be null and void after 6-months of differences, then it is time that child custody is seen in the same nonconflicting matter between the parties.

Pursuing the public health concerns regarding unbalanced Family Court rulings and its ability to alter the path of millions of children; there is a solution. As it stands, children are missing the important influences of fathers and its noticeable. Fathers.com reports that, 71% of all teen pregnancies are from fatherless homes (Fathers.com, n.d.). This brings attention to the upmost importance of a father-daughter relationship. The cost of Family Court reform is minimal compared to the long-term cost of social programs needed to fight these issues such as, teen pregnancy. According to the CDC, teen pregnancy cost the US taxpayers $9.4 billion annually[5], “meanwhile young girls growing up without their biological fathers is the leading cause of teen pregnancy” (Herald, 2003). “The study's author, Bruce Ellis, said: "These findings may support social policies that encourage fathers to remain in families with their children." This would not apply to families with high conflict or violence.” (Herald, 2003) The public health impact of promoting a more equitable custody outcome during and after divorce or separation is directly related to lower teen pregnancy. Ensuring that fathers are placed at the same starting point as mothers post-divorce is critical for the well-being of young girls. Shared parenting will decrease the rate of teen pregnancy by promoting the father-daughter relationship, and by simply acknowledging that more parenting time that is spent with Dad equates to lessening her chance at becoming pregnant and yet, in practice the courts seem to disregard any public health concern by repeatedly placing young girls in harms ways with their one-sided rulings.

Another negative outcome of the current destructive Family Court rulings is that children without equal parenting time with their fathers are “four-times more likely to be poor if the father is not around. And we know that poverty is heavily associated with academic success. [Fatherless kids] are also twice as likely to drop out”[6]. Additionally, earnings and income between single mothers and two parent households as mentioned earlier; enlisting one parent with 80% of the parenting responsibilities limits their income potential, thus affecting their household assets.  The “War” of poverty is failing. Studies show that a two-parent income home(s) is far more beneficial to children than relying on social welfare programs to supplement fiscal needs of the single parent family. Having access to both parents’ assets and stable financial abilities must be the goal for all children. As it stands, the standard procedure is that mom gets primary custody of the children, dad visits every other weekend and to make up the difference of resources, dad must provide 17% ,25% or 31%[7] of his income to mom’s household. What if instead of throwing money at the issue of financial insecurity, we promote that both parties are fiscal responsible for the children’s needs?  The current Family Court system allows children to be food insecure and homeless while the other parent is ordered to not participate. There must be a demand that both parties provide for all their child’s necessities, a balanced approach to make up for what one lacks, this is the definition of parenting.

Over the course of 2000 years, societal norms have adjusted and evolved. Socially accepted events such as divorce have become widely accepted. Having children out of wedlock has also become more prevalent. Although the structure of the family unit has changed, offering more flexibility in child rearing; the basic and protected rights to parent such child remains the same. Parents hold a constitutional right to promote their relationship and family values with said child. Through modern day Family Court systems, Fathers are still maintained as the supporters and providers through child support payments and or agreements. Fathers are only awarded custodial status 17% of the time, compared to 80% of women. Out of 13.6 million single parent households in 2015, about 10.8 million are women with 89.7% (Government, 2017) of their child support being collected through a child support agency on their behalf. This data depicts the traditional standard of supportive men. Divorce or separation may harm the physical presence of the father in the home whereas it still teaches us that without support of the father, families would be in far worse conditions. “In 2015, custodial mothers received $17.3 billion of the $28.7 billion in support that was supposed to be received (60.3%).” (Government, 2017) This is billions of dollars provided by fathers through court orders, or a collection agency being funneled tax free to the other parent. While fathers are paying out billions of dollars, the reality of what they get with all that money is not proportionate. Not only do men lose their pride and sense of purpose after divorce, but often also lose the family home, their retirement, family vacations, tax benefits, personal belongings and then are buried in massive amounts of debt.

In New York State, father custody agreements are the standard 20%-30% (Change. C., 2018) equating to every other weekend and one dinner visit per week, Vacation time in the Summer months and specific holiday schedule. This idea of “visitation” or only parenting 20-30% of the time yet, providing 17-31% of their income to the family is unbalanced and harmful to the family unit. Why is it acceptable that fathers provide financial stability and support to the family yet, maintain a visitor status or have their parental rights reduced to four days a month? If society wants to eliminate the sexist gender roles of yesterday, then we should be promoting equal parenting time and equal financial accountability from both parents. Such framework for the proposed policy reform, is aligned with the CDC’s analytical framework[8]; the feasibility, economic and budgetary impact and public health impact of the above-mentioned family court policy changes has been subject to the standards provided by the CDC, to move a policy forward. Although thoughtful and sensible, family court reform has been met with opposition. Local State officials are refusing to acknowledge the public health implications related to the bad policies and outdated domestic laws that drives the discretionary court orders we see today. An example of these the ruthless policy/laws in action can be seen in a written Judge’s decision ordering sole legal and physical custody to mom. This order was the product of ten years of litigation, $88,000 in legal fees and 30 court appearances later, Houck v. Elliot, Fam.Ct.(Monroe Co. 2020) (Houck v. Elliot , 2020). In the Judges order, he lays out the procedural history between the parties, he acknowledges the high conflict between the parties and the effect on the children of the marriage. Upon reviewing this order, tears formed in my eyes. The natural bias displayed in favor of the mother by the Judge; cherry picking years old emotional events of the children that demonstrated the “evil” doings of their father while providing zero discussion on any wrong doings by the mother. To read this order and take it at face value, one would see a “perfect parent” and in stark contrast a “bad” or “evil” parent. The current DRL §240 promotes these exact behaviors, the court actors will display a winner and a loser. When the reality is everyone loses, and children face the worst consequences.

The result of unfair custody determinations as seen in the above case is, the father related to this case has not physical seen his children in thirteen years! This father is a law abiding, hardworking man, volunteers as the Chair for New York State for the National Parents Organization and who happens to also be a foster parent along with his wife. How does a man become a foster parent to two children and at the same time ordered to stay away from his biological children? If his background is as horrible as the Judge depicts, why does he allow this father to parent non-biological children? The answer is simple, unjust, and discriminatory laws. The Judge also determined that this father was to stay away from major life events in his children’s lives, for example their high school graduations. The decision states that “Father must cease any attempts at contacting his youngest daughter, who also happens to be eighteen years old”. Id. The gross injustice shown in this court order is just a fraction of our family law policy at work. Judicial removal of a parent without due process of law, or any criminal charges is unconstitutional[9] and is a perfect example of Judicial overreach hiding behind the “Best Interest of the Children”.

Are father’s pivotal to the development of children? Many would say, “Because my dad taught me this or that” or “My father was my rock”. The cornerstone of any childhood revolves around the relationships and attachments made with your parents. Society has shown us that the environment children are raised in can have significant impact on their future endeavors but, how do we navigate around the fact that 71% of all high school dropouts are from fatherless homes? (Schools, n.d.) Not only is our approach to custody prehistoric, but it also lacks the basic data needed to truly promote what is best for children. Without addressing the direct correlated family court outcomes with a child’s success, Judicial discretion will continue to aid in the national decline of achievement in children overall. Billions of Federal dollars have been allocated to increase graduation rates across America, as seen in policies like No Child Left Behind and the Obama administrations 2013, Blueprint for Reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA.)[10] Data from 2019 reveals that 1.97 million students dropped out of High Schools, to apply the data from (Schools, n.d.) that 71% of those dropout were from fatherless homes; it would suggest that 1.4 or, the majority of the 1.9 million had indicators of absent fathers affecting their academic success.

In terms of policy approach to address the graduation rates/drop out rates, budgetary considerations are only applied to the 29% of dropouts. Providing Billions in Government funds to public school districts without researching the social barriers that many of the study group participants face is the reason for the slow decline in graduation rates/drop out rates, accounting for a 4.6% decrease over thirteen years. (2006-2019) (Schools, n.d.). To ignore 71% of the problem is irresponsible. It sets a precedence, that the minority is greater than the majority, where programs like Head Start existing to provide early education to low-income families yet, allow damaging family court rulings later in primary school, risking becoming a part of the 71% statistical outcome. Backward policies such as above not only waste taxpayer’s money, but it also provides inaccurate or “corrupt” data for those programs. Head Start may report impressive numbers to the appropriations committee but fail to realize that all the funds and resources are being thrown away when the parents divorce. Taxpayers not educated on the data behind dropout rates may not understand that investing 1.1 billion dollars for one program[11] and only reaching 29% of the students in need is not efficient. Common sense policy would include family structure studies built into any educational program funded by the Federal Government. It is wise to believe that the more positive adult role models that children have can greatly increase their rate of success. Shared custody policy provides two parents able and willing to participate in their children’s education and sets the norm that both parents are responsible for their children’s success either through joining PTA, both being in attendance for performances or sports events, routine homework requirements in both homes, meeting with teachers and forming community relationships that are so important throughout one’s educational life. These are the factors that directly relate to graduation rates and reducing dropout rates in children from divorce or separated families.

Regardless of the funding levels given to child services/programs, without placing fathers to the front of the line of defense, these services and programs will continue to supplement for the missing parent. Fathers are the number one defense mechanism in preventing poverty, crime, abuse, teen pregnancy and educational success in children. Encouraging gender norms for modern day parenting needs, is an absolute. Without addressing the natural bias currently experienced in family court, we run the risk of exposing millions of children to the negative statistical outcomes outlined herein. 

As I have outlined earlier, shared parenting policy reform may be considered as a promising aspect of the social injustices facing our children today. Divorce is one of the biggest life event stressors a person can face, Men/fathers go into marriage to be accepted by their social groups and is seen as a natural next step. The stability and structure that a father brings to the family is unparalleled; often accompanied with financial security, housing, discipline, religious guidance, and the overall happiness of the home. Society has a lot to say regarding the role and importance of father’s pre-divorce yet, fails to continue to provide updated studies or resources for men facing the hardships that are confronted with post-divorce. Without Family Law reform, natural bias will remain at the forefront of most custody determinations therefore wreak havoc on the future emotional and physical development of children. We can no longer accept the blatant gender discrimination that results in higher teen pregnancy, dropout rates, and poverty when there are real solutions ready and available to be enacted today. Being a father does not end at the point of divorce. Financial security does not end at the point of divorce. Expecting children to finish high school does not have to end at the point of divorce, the only issues that divorce rectifies is the legal attachments and accountability to the other adult.

[1] Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Marriage and Divorce

Data are for the U.S. 2019.

[2] nprEd Poverty, Dropouts, Pregnancy, Suicide: What The Numbers Say About Fatherless Kids, 2017.

[3] Based off number of overnights per month with a every other weekend schedule.

[4] Lackey and Lackey, PLLC. United States Census data obtained from 2015; https://www.lackeypllc.com/blog/2019/november/single-fathers-single-mothers-and-child-custody-/#:~:text=The%20census%20data%20reports%20found,a%20mediator%20or%20the%20court.

[5] Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Teen Pregnancy, 2017.

[6] nprEd Poverty, Dropouts, Pregnancy, Suicide: What the Numbers Say About Fatherless Kids, 2017

[7] New York State Child Support Standards, based of number of children.

[8] CDC’s Policy Analytical Framework, https://www.cdc.gov/policy/analysis/process/docs/CDCPolicyAnalyticalFramework.pdf

[9] 14th amendment, equal protection clause.

[10] https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/crosscuttingissues/highschoolgrad.pdf

[11] Getting students through middle school and into college ($1.1 billion). GEAR UP and TRIO programs, (ESEA.). .