|
|
|
|
Father
and Child Reunion Summary By Dr.
Warren Farrell |
|
“The
Family Arrangements that Work Best
for Children”
Father
and Child Reunion (2001) is a meta-analysis
of hundreds of studies from the U.S.
and other countries. Many of the studies
look at what leads to children doing
the best and worse after divorce.
The documentation for these findings
is in Father and Child Reunion.
These
are the family structures ranked according
to the ones in which children do the
best—the last three after divorce:
Intact
family
Shared Parent Time With the Following
Three Conditions:
the child has about equal time with
mom and dad
parents live close enough to each
other that the child does not need
to forfeit friends or activities when
visiting the other parent
no bad-mouthing
Primary father time (primary father
custody)4. Primary mother time
Perhaps the most surprising is that
children raised by single dads do
better in more than 20 areas of measurement
in comparison to children raised by
single moms. These measurements include
academic progress, social competence,
psychological health and physical
health.
Caveat.
This does not mean that men are better
fathers than women are mothers. Single
fathers usually have more income and
education, tend to be older, and are
more self-selected, thus more highly
motivated. Single dads in the year
2004 are similar to female doctors
in the 1950s: exceptionally motivated.
One
reason, though, that children on average
do so much better with single dads
is ironic— it is rare for the single
mom to disappear from the child’s
life. To moms’ credit, they are more
likely to stay involved; to dad’s
credit, dads are more likely to facilitate
mom’s involvement than mom is to facilitate
dad’s. In brief, the child living
primarily with dad is more likely
to live in conditions that come closer
to the intact family than is the child
living primarily with mom.
Why
this difference? One clue appears
to be the bad-mouthing gap. When Glynnis
Walker, in her research for Solomon’s
Children, asked children years after
divorce which parent bad-mouthed the
other, the children were almost five
times more likely to say “only mom
says bad things about dad” than vice
versa. Also, dads are more likely
to ask for mom’s input and value mom’s
input, thus encouraging mom to remain
involved. Perhaps as a result, when
children live with only their moms,
the parents are nine times as likely
to have conflict as when children
live with their dads.
These
findings are significant for two reasons.
First, because in high-conflict divorces
if we conclude that the parental conflict
will prevent 50-50 involvement from
working, we tend to revert to primary mother
time, when in fact it’s far more likely
that with primary father time the
parents will have less conflict, and
that the children will have more of
both parents, and will do better.
Second,
once primary father time is understood
to have these advantages, and therefore
becomes the first choice of the law
if there is conflict, it eliminates
any incentive the mom may feel to
make the divorce appear to be high-conflict
because she knows that will lead to
her having the child. Once she knows
the likely alternative to equal involvement
is primary father involvement, the
incentive is to reduce conflict and
have equal involvement—which is better
than primary father involvement. If,
of course, the dad is the primary
alienator, the current preference
for the mother should remain.
Let’s
look at why the following three conditions
seem to work best or children after
divorce:
First,
the child has about equal time with
mom and dad
Second, parents live close enough
to each other that the child does
not need to forfeit friends or activities
when visiting the other parent
Third, no bad-mouthing
First, the Child Has about Equal Time
with Mom and Dad.
One-Parent
Stability vs. Two-Parent Stability.
Until now, we have understandably
thought that amid the instability
of divorce, children experience the
most stability by staying primarily
with the parent who has been their
primary parent. I call this “one-parent
stability.” However, the research
shows that one-parent “stability”
in reality creates psychological instability.
Children with minimal exposure to
the other parent after divorce seem
to feel abandoned, and often psychologically
rudderless-- even when they succeed
on the surface (e.g., good grades).
Children
with both parents, and especially
children with substantial father contact,
do better--even when socio-economic
variables are controlled for. They
do better on their SATs, on their
social skills, on their self-esteem,
in their physical health, in their
ability to be assertive, and, surprisingly,
the more dad involvement the more
a child is likely to be empathetic.
These children are far less likely
to suffer from nightmares, temper
tantrums, being bullied, or have other
signs of feeling like a victim.
These
findings occur even though one and
two-year old children of divorce with
developmental disabilities are fifteen
times more likely to be given to fathers
to raise, and children who are raised
by moms and have problems with the
5 D’s (drinking, drugs, depression,
delinquency, disobedience) are most
likely to be given to their dads to
“take over” in early teenage years.
The propensity of dads to take on
the more challenging children and
yet still have positive outcomes speaks
highly of dads’ contributions. Nevertheless,
these children still do not do as
well as when the children are in an
intact family, or when the involvement
of both mom and dad are closer to
equal.
Why
does the approximately equal involvement
of both parents appear so important,
and even more crucial after a divorce?
No one knows for certain, but here
appears to be three rarely-discussed
possible reasons that emanate from
“between the lines”. I believe they
are crucial to a cutting-edge understanding
of child development:
The
child is half mom and half dad. The
job of a child growing up is to discover
whom it is. Who is it? It is half
mom and half dad. It is not the better
parent. It is both parents, warts
and all. So we are not talking about
fathers’ rights, mothers’ rights or
even the child’s right to both parents.
We are talking about a new paradigm:
the child’s right to both halves of
itself. Psychological stability seems
to emanate from the child knowing
both parts of itself.
The
implications for the court is that
there is much less need for psychological
testing of both parents—if the child
does better by being about equally
with both parents, warts and all,
we don’t have to conduct a court battle
as to which parent has the fewest
warts. The “warts” that matter are
bad-mouthing and alienation of the
other parent; the desire to move the
child away from the other parent;
being consistently physically abusive;
being sexually abusive.
Checks
and balances. Dads and moms, like
Republicans and Democrats, provide
checks and balances. Moms tend to
overstress protection; dads may overstress
risk-taking—there has to be a balance
of power for the child to absorb a
balance of both parents’ values. One
parent dominating tends to leave the
child with a stereotyped and biased
perspective of the values of the minority
parent, and ultimately the child is
unappreciative of that part of itself.
The minority parent becomes a straw-man
or straw-woman, thus that part of
the child becomes a straw self. The
minority parent becomes undervalued,
thus that part of the child becomes
undervalued to itself.
Overnights.
As children enter adolescence, they
connect best with the values of the
parents during the peaceful moments
prior to bedtime, often the only time
when the pressures of peers recede
and the presence of parents’ values
can reenter the child’s psyche.
Second,
Parents Living Close.
When
children have to forfeit friends or
activities to be with the other parent,
resentment toward the parent is created
just when parental involvement is
most needed in balance with independence.
Whether during the earlier years or
adolescence, neither one can be forfeited.
Third,
No Bad Mouthing
Criticizing
the other parent is criticizing the
child—it is criticizing the half of
the child that is the other parent.
As the child looks in the mirror and
sees that his or her body language
is the body language of the criticized
parent, the child fears she or he
might also be an “irresponsible jerk,”
“liar,” or whatever…
Bad-mouthing
the other parent is the most insidious
forms of child abuse because the child
feels she or he has no place to go—arguing
with the parent doing the bad-mouthing
makes the child the parent’s enemy;
reporting it to the parent being bad-mouthed
threatens to lead to parental arguments
which further erode the child’s stability.
Those
are the three most important conditions
after divorce for the best likely
outcome for the child. If dad is so
important, though, what are his conscious
and unconscious contributions?
|
|
Father and Child
Reunion - Part II |
|
“
The Unspoken—and often Unconscious—Contributions
of Dads”
Prior
to doing the research for Father and
Child Reunion, I knew dads were more
likely to play, coach and roughhouse
with their children. I did not know
that in comparison to children raised
by single moms, children raised by
single dads are more likely to be
assertive without being aggressive.
(My expectation was that rough-housing
might contribute to aggressiveness,
not assertiveness.) Assertiveness
without aggressiveness is one of the
key qualities to being successful
in work and life. It leads to better
social skills and more friends; more
self-confidence and less depression;
less acting out…
I
was similarly surprised to discover
that children raised by single dads
are more empathetic. We usually think
of empathy as something transmitted
via the mother. Yet, in study after
study, no matter what thefamily structure,
the amount of time a father spends
with a child is one of the strongest
predictors of empathy in adulthood.
Empathy
is the key to love: I’ve never heard
someone say, “I want a divorce; my
partner understands me”. Children
who don’t feel understood seek another
world at the point of a needle; join
gangs or cults to get the respect
they didn’t get at home, or just disappear
into a bottle. Even at work, it is
rare for us to sue someone from whom
we feel empathy.
Is
there a connection between what dad
does and these outcomes? No one can
be 100% sure, but a blend of research
and careful observation offer important
clues. Say dad and son Jimmy are rough-housing,
and dad has Jimmy playfully “pinned
down”. If Jimmy has no experience,
he might poke, pull or punch his way
to “freedom”. So dad teaches Jimmy
to be assertive (use leverage, fake-out,
etc), not aggressive. Once he’s taught
Jimmy, he gives him a second chance.
However, if Jimmy returns to his poke-punch
behavior, dad is likely to say, “okay,
no more” and walk away.
What
just happened? First, dad was teaching
Jimmy two things: to also think of
dad’s needs, and to make distinctions
between assertiveness and aggressiveness.
Second, by returning to play after
he taught Jimmy, he was giving Jimmy
the opportunity to see if he had mastered
the lesson-- not in theory, but in
real life: that is, once the real-life
emotions of excitement and temptation-to-win
re-enter the picture.
Third,
dad’s willingness to walk away (versus
continuing rough-housing) was dad’s
way of respecting Jimmy’s ability
to absorb the lesson if it was in
his interest to do so. Therefore,
if Jimmy’s response to his dad walking
away is a temper tantrum, dad resists
giving in (e.g., he resists rewarding
the tantrum with “oh, okay, one more
chance”) and also ups the consequences
(“one more word, no ice cream”), making
it apparent to Jimmy that terrorism
is also not in his best interest.
When
it comes to the development of empathy,
dads tend to create a simple choice
for the child: think of my needs,
or don’t get your needs met. Thinking
of another’s needs is the beginning
of empathy. Dad was teaching Jimmy
that empathy pays—empathy is for winners.
He uses that same formula for teaching
anything: align the child’s self interest
with the child’s long-term best interest.
This
contrasts with mom’s greater likelihood
to not rough-house to begin with,
therefore depriving mom and Jimmy
both of the bond of physicality, excitement
and laughter, and the incentive to
give more or less of that to Jimmy
based on his willingness to learn.
Were mom around when dad was about
to begin rough-housing, she’d be more
likely to establish limits—“do it
outside, wait till the daytime, put
on sneakers and a jacket”—so often
it doesn’t happen.
Were
mom watching when dad walked away
from Jimmy, and Jimmy responded with
a temper tantrum, mom would be more
likely to complain to the dad, “honey,
you got Jimmy all excited, what do
you expect?”
Were
mom teaching Jimmy when he wasn’t
paying attention, she would be more
likely to repeat what she said. If
Jimmy continued to ignore his mom,
his mom would be likely to threaten
deprivation, but be less likely to
follow-through (she might even walk
away, but then respond to the temper
tantrum by giving Jimmy another chance).
Giving
Jimmy another chance reflects mom’s
empathy for Jimmy. However, once Jimmy
learns that the temper tantrum, crying,
or complaining to mom that “daddy
hurt me,” could pay off with a reduction
of the consequences, Jimmy begins
focusing on which method he can use
to reduce the consequences—meaning
Jimmy remains focused on his own needs,
not someone else’s. As a result, Jimmy’s
empathy doesn’t develop. His focus
on how he can reduce the consequences
distracts him from empathy. Being
given multiple chanceswithout consequences
gives him little incentive to stretch
himself to his next developmental
level.
Dad
is more likely to encourage Jimmy
to do risk-taking while he plays the
role of guide and safety net. But
few dads explain to mom that risk-taking
is a crucial ingredient of success:
it helps children discover what they
can achieve, experiment with which
methods of assertion work, and thus
increases a child’s I.Q. Children
who take risks with parents as guides
and safety nets stretch themselves,
build self-confidence and are more
prepared to individuate and enter
the world of work.
As
children get older, dad-the-rough-houser
often evolves into dad-the-coach.
Here, the most important lessons seem
to come from team sports--not gymnastics
or tennis, but a sport in which almost
every play requires co-operation to
win. A basketball player who shoots
without passing to a teammate who
might have a better shot is soon ostracized.
Team play’s “teachers” are the success
or failure of each play; the ostracism
or praise of each peer. So the dad
who is the coach—or the parent who
encourages team sports— is handing
the child over to the world to experience
how cooperation creates success in
the world rather than learn it via
lecture. To learn this while creating
lasting childhood memories is a blessing.
Indirectly, it is the gift of dad-as-coach,
or dad as encourager. It is something
every mom can do, but something dads
tend to do.
Dad’s
fun-and-games approach turns out to
be a lot more than fun-and- games.
Once a dad invests a child in the
excitement of becoming a winner in
a sport, the child is able to hear
what would otherwise be seen as criticism
or the destruction of self-esteem
as coaching and preparation for being
a winner.
While
it is easier to see the value of dad
in the development of a son, his involvement
is in many ways more uniquely valuable
in thedevelopment of a daughter. Why?
A son raised by mom alone may at least
be encouraged by peers or a step-dad
to learn the lessons of empathy, assertiveness,
and team sports; a daughter raised
by mom alone is less likely to have
peers guide her with the proper safety
nets, and even a step-dad is more
likely to be constrained by mom’s
limitations on his risk-taking when
it comes to her daughters.
Those
of us who have dads who grew up in
the depression know that no matter
how rich our dads became they always
had a “money wound”. Children today
who grow up without dad’s values and
contributions being in balance with
mom’s will, no matter how much love
they receive, always have a “father
wound.” These children will be missing
more than dad’s contribution. They
will be missing the half of themselves
that is their dad. This is the real
father and child reunion.
|
Three Judicial Biases
About Moms, Dads and Children |
|
When
I do expert witness work, I confront
from most judges three biases that
I myself was also surprised to see
proven invalid when I did the research
for Father and Child Reunion. The
first bias is the stability bias;
the second is the mother bias; and
the third is the 'If-the-couple-is-in-conflict-joint-custody-will-not-work'
bias. All of these biases apply to
post-divorce parenting.
The
Stability Bias. Judges understandably
reason that amid the instability of
divorce, children are best stabilized
by staying in the home they are accustomed
to with the parent who has been the
primary parent. I call this "geographical
stability". The research shows
that geographical stability does not
create psychological stability. For
children of divorce, geographical
stability is "one parent stability";
this article explains why "one
parent stability" is psychologically
destabilizing. For example:
Studies
show that after divorce the children
who do best psychologically have about
an equal amount of exposure to both
mom and dad-especially if both parents
live near each other, and there is
no bad-mouthing. The psychological
stability of two-parents equally involved
leads to the children also doing better
academically and socially, and being
healthier physically.
Why
does two parent stability trump geographical
stability? No one can be 100% sure,
but a blend of research and observation
offer clues. Three quick assertions
in quasi-headline form to be developed
in the article...
First,
the job of a child growing up is to
discover whom it is. Who is it? It
is half mom and half dad. It is not
the better parent. It is both parents.
Warts and all. So we are not talking
here about fathers' rights, mothers'
rights or even the child's right to
both parents. We are talking about
a new paradigm: the child's right
to both halves of itself.
Second,
children with minimal exposure to
one parent seem to feel abandoned,
often psychologically rudderless.
Third,
dads and moms, like Republicans and
Democrats, provide checks and balances.
Moms tend to overstress protection;
dads may overstress risk-taking-there
has to be a balance of power for the
child to absorb a balance of both
parents' values. One parent dominating
tends to leave the child with a stereotyped
and biased perspective of the values
of the minority parent, and ultimately
a lack of appreciation for that part
of itself.
The
Mother Bias. Most judges do believe
children do best with both parents,
but if they must live with one, mom
is given the edge. In fact, the new
research very clearly shows that children
brought up by dad are more likely
to do better psychologically, physically,
academically and socially than those
brought up by mom.
I
will explain not only some of the
twenty-five measures that create this
counterintuitive conclusion, but also
what dads do unconsciously that so
often works to the benefit of the
child. At the same time, I will also
explain why it would be erroneous
to conclude that men make better dads
than women do moms (e.g., dads usually
have more income).
The
"If-the-couple-is-in-conflict-joint-custody-will-not-work"
Bias. Conflict-- especially bad-mouthing--
hurts all parenting arrangements.
The more the conflict, though, the
more important it is for the child
to see both parents about equally,
because conflict leaves the child
vulnerable to feeling that the parent
it does not see has abandoned it--
does not love her or him. The less
the child sees a parent the easier
it is form a negative and caricatured
stereotype of the unseen parent that
leads to the child feeling negative
about that half of her or himself.
Finally,
a system that says, "If the couple
can't get along in court how are they
going to get along enough to share
the children?" creates an incentive
for the mom to initiate conflict.
Why the mom? The Mom Bias teaches
mom that if she can erase the joint
custody option, she is more likely
than dad to be given custody of the
children. This awareness creates an
incentive for a mom who wants full
custody to not co-operate with the
dad.
The
three biases in combination lead to
many options after divorce not being
considered. This article will explore
some of those options.
My
experience thus far is that virtually
all judges are focused on doing what
is best for the children, as are most
moms and dads; that the above responses
to these biases address the issues
that prevent judges from giving more
priority to securing both parents'
equal involvement; that once judges
know this, their rulings are much
more likely to incorporate this prioritization.
|
Dr. Warren Farrell has just published
his latest findings after 13 years of
compiling all the best research on
children of divorce. These two DVDs will
help you save your children from the
ravages of divorce.
The state-of-the-art in what is best
for children of divorce. Every parent,
judge and family law attorney must view
this video.
Click Here to Learn More.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|