« She Don’t Use Jelly | Main | Dogs and Cats Living Together »
Mother’s Day
By Jeff Fecke | May 11, 2008
Originally posted May 8, 2005.
* * *
Today is Mothers’ Day, and I feel like I need to say something.
Over at Pandagon, AmandaPanda’s been posting about the soi-disant men’s rights movement. I straddle the fence on the MRMers; I understand the pain that many of them are going through with regard to being noncustodial parents, and I can empathize with their belief that a father’s role as a parent is often trivialized.
But where I’ve always parted company with the MRMers is where they start getting into child support, because always and inevitably, the argument gets to this: All Men Pay Too Much For Child Support, And Women Do Not Allow Them To See Their Kids.
Hogwash.
When I got divorced last year, I was warned by multiple people that I needed to “watch out” and “secure my rights.” I was told that my soon-to-be-ex-wife would be out for blood, that she’d try to bleed me dry and restrict my visits with my daughter. Hire an attorney, I was told early and often.
It wasn’t bad advice–my ex-wife is an attorney, and she hired a family-law attorney to draw up the papers–but I didn’t take it. I had already run up an impressive amount of debt; I didn’t wish to exacerbate the situation by taking out even more money and, moreover, I didn’t wish to start our lives apart with any more rancor than was necessary.
And so how badly was I taken to the cleaners? Well, my ex and I filled out the divorce decree together. We talked about how much I made and came to a fair number for support; we discussed when I could take Katie and came to a reasonable agreement there, too. In the months that followed, I paid support on time (save the month when my car’s engine blew up–and then made up the difference within weeks), and fully, and without complaint. My ex-wife allowed me to see my daughter as much as I wanted to–on average about twenty days a month, even if just for an hour or two.
We talk about our daughter constantly, making sure that we’re putting her first in our discussions. When I took a different, lower-paying job, we renegotiated child support in a way that we both considered fair. We didn’t go back to court; we didn’t have to. Similarly, though the divorce decree lays out exactly when each of us get our daughter, we haven’t paid much attention to it of late; we simply talk, reasonably, and come to a decision that works for both of us. We both show flexibility. We both work with the other.
And why is this? Because it’s not about us. My daughter is a wonderful girl, full of life and energy and intelligence and love. And if we were to squander our precious time with her squabbling about whether I could see Kate from 2-4 on Saturday, or whether my ex-wife was spending that excess $20 on groceries or gasoline, then we’d be losing out dramatically–and hurting our child in the process.
I know not everyone has this experience. There are women who hold children hostage for more money, and men who refuse to pay their fair share. There are men who can’t be bothered to visit their children, and women who spend their child support on frivolity instead of the kids. And there are fathers raising children and deadbeat moms, to boot.
My daughter, though, is lucky. Her mother puts her ahead of anything else. And on this Mothers’ Day, I think it’s important for me to say to my ex-wife: Shelly, Katie has as good a mother as I can imagine. We aren’t where we’d thought we’d be, but I know it will work out for the best–because I know how much our daughter means to you, and I trust you to do the right thing for her.
I just want to say Happy Mothers’ Day, Shelly; I do realize how lucky I am that you’re our daughter’s mom.
Topics: Personal Stuff | 6 Comments »
May 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Nice post, Jeff. I wish all divorces were as free of acrimony as yours. It does seem to me a bit pollyannish to assume that if one parent is focused on the needs of his child, somehow both will be. When one parent is caught up in bitterness and hurt feelings, achieving “fairness” or “justice” often becomes an obsession. “I’ll make him/her pay for cheating on me!” “I’ll get him/her back for leaving me alone and weak like this!” Sometimes, this revenge motivation is carried out with the pretext of doing “right” by the children. It’s very complex, Jeff. I can understand that you would count your blessings because you had a less negative experience than most. But don’t malign a movement that is trying to address the bigger problem, which is when the State comes marching in.
When one or two parties are obsessed with making the other pay (as opposed to both parties cooperating), acrimony goes through the roof. Allegations are hurled (especially against men, such as DV and child abuse allegations), children are alienated against one or both parents, and sometimes the government sees all of this and takes the kids away, “just to be safe.” I think there needs to be legal reform. There needs to be a recognition that DV allegations can be (and are) used solely as a tactical weapon in a divorce. There needs to be recognition that DV against men occurs and is serious, and should be prosecuted, and is far more prevalent than the feminist assertion that DV against men is only at 5 percent of cases (and even that supposedly among gay men).
When the acrimony heats up, so do the charges. You have hit on a valid point that it is acrimony that presages the warring in a divorce. I have a suggestion, though. We ought to be urging our state legislators to provide an alternate route for parents in custody disputes, a route that would allow them to circumvent the toxic adversarial process that fuels the allegations which keep the lawyers, judges, and prosecutors in business. That route is collaborative law.
Collaborative law brings both parties, along with competent counsel, into a room away from the courthouse where they can discuss what is best for their kids openly and directly, rather than through court motions. It reduces acrimony, and encourages both parties to come to a settlement away from the pressure cooker environment of family courts. It’s not a panacea, but it does reduce the acrimony. Since both parents must be represented by counsel, and poorer parents may not have sufficient resources for this, I would be open to programs that allow newly licensed legal interns to gain valuable family law experience by providing free or reduced cost services in representing such poor litigants. It’s worth it if custody disputes are resolved away from the courtroom, away from the judges, and away from the high-priced lawyers (who benefit by prolonging the agony).
Jeff, don’t write off the agenda of the men’s movement as just hostile to paying child support. It’s more complicated than that, and you know it.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I’ve been through a similar experience, but as the child. My parents were awesome about their separation (they had never married, so there was no divorce). I saw my father every other weekend and then whenever my mother needed a babysitter or had to go on a business trip. My father paid child support at first. This was renegotiated when I was having trouble in school and my parents decided to send me to a private school – my father paid for my tuition. Then, when my mother and I moved out of country, he stopped paying child support entirely and just paid for plane tickets so that I could still visit him every other weekend.
As I mentioned earlier, my father babysat me whenever my mother needed to stay late at work or had a business trip. They raised me as a team, even though they weren’t together. Both called each other once a week right up until I finally moved out to go to University to make sure that they were both aware of what I was up to, what I was struggling with, and to coordinate their parenting strategies.
When people find out that I am from a “broken home,” I get a lot of sympathy. But honestly, my parents worked together to raise me far more than most married parents I’ve met. They were (and are!) fantastic parents, as I am sure you and your ex are for your child.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:04 am
To characterize fathers who have been pushed to the edges of their children’s lives as “angry about child support” is a cheap shot, Jeff. And one which feminists love to re-iterate. It’s about as fair and accurate as saying “mothers only want custody so they can get a free handout and get back at dad”.
If you talk to the members of Fathers4Justice and similar organizations, you will hear that most of their pain is simply due to the fact that they cannot see their children – something which mothers seldom have to even worry about. And yes, having to pay $$$ to a vindictive ex-wife must hurt too. Would you rather have them just “take it like a man” and not be allowed to express their pain at all?
It’s great when divorcing parents can collaborate, and (unlike some MRAs who have become embittered against women) I would even suggest that on a level playing field, most mothers and fathers would want to work together for their children.
But the family court system is not a level playing field. Even if the mother is altruistic and egalitarian by nature, every divorcing father AND mother knows that if she felt like it, she would have access to a devastating arsenal of weaponry provided by the system, to set about ruining his life with ZERO consequences for her. (When was the last time a mother was prosecuted for making false allegations, or denying contact time with dad?).
Worse still, since the system profits from conflict, it has a vested interest in persuading otherwise reasonable women to go down that road.
To quote from feminist theory in a different context “With such an imbalance of power, there can be no consent”. Every time the father disagrees with the mother (and this is true even in many intact marriages) he is painfully conscious of the sword of Damocles above his head.
So you should certainly consider yourself lucky in your personal situation, but maligning those who are not so fortunate is adding insult to their injury.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:36 am
To those saying that it’s about more than just the money and that the system is unbalanced – you are also simplifying the issue. Yes, in some areas, women are believed regardless. But it’s a double-edged sword. A woman who tries to claim that the husband was a bad person who hit her gets loaded with all the stereotypes of “stupid woman who stayed with him so long despite his badness.” So while yes, she may get the courts against him if she lies, she will also get the courts (and her community) against her. Not to mention the trouble she would be in if she gets into a relationship that truly is abusive – lawyers would jump on the information that shows that she is putting her child in harm’s way through poor relationship choices.
If she works, she will be seen as a bad mother because she isn’t “there” for her children. If she doesn’t work, she will be ruled unable to provide for them. If she does get custody and she does get child support, she will be viewed as a “man-trapping gold digger.” If she doesn’t go after child support, she may not be able to cope financially with the raising of the kids (lord knows it’s nearly impossible these days to support a family with a single income).
I agree that there are courts that will rule in favour of the women regardless and I do agree that there are some women who will take advantage of that. However, there are just as many courts that operate with the same assumptions as you (commenters) do – that women seeking child support are just gold diggers out to stick it to innocent and victimized husband. Women go through horrific abuse and are then turned out with their children, no child support, and a court order that they must place their children into the hands of men who are abusive. This happens all the time.
To claim that it’s a simple issue, that the entire system is turned against men, is just plain wrong. The system is still very mysogynistic. Most of the judges are still male and women still must fight against all the stereotypes of pocket-picking harlots.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Grimalkin wrote:
No, she won’t.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
“Most of the judges are still male and women still must fight against all the stereotypes of pocket-picking harlots.”
Not sure of most family court judges are still male, and even if they are, so what? A largely male Congress passed VAWA, IMBRA, and a host of policies which favor women over men. Men in power often use their outdated chivalry to screw over the little man while “protecting” women. In fact, male judges can be the worst since they often feel they must bend over backwards to help even the most undeserving mothers.
As for all that fluff about “the community will think poorly of her” – also untrue given the prevalence of single moms. And besides, if she has the child and the cashflow, who cares?
I’m sure many divorced dads (vast majority are NOT abusive by the way, another feminist canard) would gladly exchange the “approval” of their neighbors for some more time with their kids.