Why do fathers give up/become defeated about their kids

[Before you can make things better, you have to stop making them worse...]

Interesting perspectives... .why do men give up and what do you think can be done to avoid this? Thoughts?

This article has some interesting background.

Skippy


==============================================

Psychological and Structural Factors Contributing to Disengagement of
Noncustodial Fathers After Divorce

Kruk, E. (1992). "Psychological and Structural Factors Contributing to the Disengagement of Noncustodial Fathers After Divorce," Family and Conciliation Courts Review 29 (2), 81-101 (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts/ Sage Publications).

Most disengaged fathers presented a complex amalgam of reasons for their loss of contact with their children after divorce, rather than one clear cause:

Reasons for Disengagement(N=40)

90% 33% 28% 18% 16% 5%

Access difficulties    Father's decision to cease contact    Practical difficulties (distance,finances, work schedule)    Child(ren) not wanting contact    Legal injunction    Early pattern of no contact (prohibiting future contact)

Most frequently mentioned (by 36 of the 40 disengaged fathers) were difficulties related to access, whereas many of the contact fathers stressed the importance of the support and encouragement of their ex-wives in their maintenance of contact and development of a new parental role. Those fathers who received little or no confirmation of their roles as "fathers" by their former spouses appear most likely to become disengaged from their children's lives:

   "That's the way my wife wants it - she doesn't want me around. And it's very difficult for me because I always feel guilty and wonder 'Did I try hard enough to get access?' I know I've tried every angle, and there's nothing I can really do now, other than what I've done. And the legal system has allowed, has encouraged, my wife to cut off contact between me and my son. They say I'm a swine if I don't pay support, but they say nothing about my not being allowed to see my son". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "My wife's refusal to share the caring of our son, her perception of him as 'her' son and of herself as the only legitimate parent ... .My wife actively breaking off my contact with my son, and her parents' influence in her breaking all ties with me ... .My own inability to see my son on only a sporadic basis, which is nothing like my previous relationship with him or what I think to be fatherhood. Tied in with all of this is a tremendous sense of loss, of sadness, of total humiliation and discouragement". (British "disengaged" father)

    "... .The tension and conflict, the anger that permeated all my contact with my wife and children was impossible to bear. She was really, really angry. Her hands always shook, her voice always trembled--conflict was the central element in our relationship. Each contact involved a major fight, insulting screaming matches where we'd both say really vicious things to each other. It was one huge trauma for the girls. We'd argue and fight, I'd take my daughters, brood all afternoon, come back, and there'd be another big scene. My daughters would listen to this; they'd cry and scream. My wife threatened to call the police; I was in a blind fury. Finally I gave up--it was hopeless. My daughter was in the middle, she was unhappy, wetting the bed. You have the kid's welfare at heart, which my wife used as a convenient weapon against me. She saw me as causing all this damage, as the disruptive influence in my daughter's life. So the solution is to remove this disruptive influence. I was told to stay away; that I was harmful emotionally to my children. But never mind my daughter's constant pleas for her dad; never mind my wife telling my daughter that I had abandoned her. These are all subtle things that my wife wouldn't admit even to herself, but they're what determined the final outcome. After awhile I became afraid to make contact. My wife was perfectly content not to have me re-enter the children's life: that becomes a tremendous barrier--you become afraid of making contact. After awhile you rebuild your life, they rebuild theirs--it becomes easier to accept the status quo."

Linked to ex-wives' lack of support of paternal contact and fathers' feelings of no longer being influential and valued as fathers, were fathers' own decisions to cease contact with their children. The 13 fathers citing this reason spoke of their overwhelming sense of loss and depression, the pain of seeing their children only intermittently, and the fact that an avuncular "visiting" relationship in no sense resembled "real fatherhood" and was perhaps harmful for children as well. Fathers' own decisions to cease contact were inextricably linked to their inability to adapt to the constraints of the "visiting" relationship:

   "The most difficult thing is not seeing them and not actually being there to see them grow up. If you don't see them for three months or six months or whatever, you've missed six months of their life. You've missed the wee things like, 'Dad, the ice-cream van's here' or 'Dad, I've got homework to do' or this and that. And then you've got to say goodbye to them, and it's very frustrating. And you wonder - I still don't really know what's best - I wonder if maybe it would be better to leave them alone and let them live their life, and it's not knowing what to do, not knowing which is best for them. The feeling you get inside yourself everytime you go away: 'Am I doing the right thing by seeing them, would they be better off if I just didn't see them?'... .It's basically just a hurtful relationship. There's a lot of men who really care about their kids, but walk away from them, because there's too much hurt on both sides. But a lot of people don't realize that. I used to be one of them, by the way, who thought really badly about a father who hadn't seen his kids in years. People seemingly label these fathers as uncaring people, but sometimes I wonder if in fact they're more caring, because of the hurt involved, and the separation - and each time you've got your child and your child has to go back - is really hard, is really difficult. And until you go through it, you can't understand it. And I think especially with younger kids, the quicker a parent doesn't see their kids then their kids aren't really realizing that their dad's not there. Maybe it's less hurtful because both the child and parent have to say goodbye to each other, and both of you are practically in tears. There's a sort of silence between you - it's like continual hurt. And men that don't actually go and see their kids again, I quite admire, because they're minimizing the pain on that child - because otherwise it's continual pain. But the pain never goes away for the father, no matter what he does". (British "disengaged" father)

    "Mainly that I couldn't accept the role of simply being a visitor in my kids' lives. I'd been so involved with them, when I lived with them, as a father, that the gulf between simply being somebody who's a visitor, who took them out occasionally, and being a father, was just too wide for me to bridge. And I also felt that it would inevitably lead to resentment on their part about it. I didn't think that I could cope during the time that I did see them as a visitor... .and that probably during the whole of that time I'd be screwed up emotionally to such an extent that that would convey itself to them, and lead to them not wanting to be with me."

Eleven fathers mentioned practical difficulties in exercising access, including problems of distance, transportation, finances, work schedule, or lack of adequate accommodation, but only as a secondary factor in their loss of contact. Seven referred to a lack of confirmation of the non-custodial father role by their children, or their children increasingly distancing themselves from their father after divorce; 6 mentioned the bias of the legal system toward sole maternal custody and the existence of a legal injunction prohibiting the type of contact they had desired; and 2 fathers indicated that they had been unable to overcome a pattern of diminished or no contact established in the months immediately following divorce.

Clearly, a shortcoming of the present study is that only fathers' own stated reasons for disengagement were accessible; corroborative information from other members of the divorced family was not available, and uncritical reliance on self-report data can be problematic as fathers tended to largely underestimate their own role in their loss of contact with their children. Nevertheless, fathers' own interpretations of the disengagement process, not previously examined in the divorce literature, are what they face and act upon; for this reason, any analysis of paternal disengagement must begin with and seriously consider fathers' self-reports. There were many indications in the data, however, that paternal disengagement is a much more complex phenomenon than merely the result of obstruction of access by the former spouse.

Interdependence of structural and psychological factors. A closer scrutiny of the dynamics underlying the process of disengagement suggests that two orders of variables determine the level of post-divorce father-child contact: structural and psychological. The disengagement of non-custodial fathers after divorce is a result of a combination of structural constraints and fathers' own psychological response to the perceived loss of their children. On their own, each is usually insufficient to effect disengagement; combined, they are a potent force mitigating against post-divorce paternal contact. Both structural and psychological factors are inculpated as critical mediating variables between divorce and disengagement: while divorce represents a situation where fathers are judicially, culturally, and legislatively disadvantaged on the basis of gender, fathers' psychological adjustment to the consequences of divorce is the other critical factor in the disengagement equation.

Non-custodial fathers' disengagement from their children should not be interpreted as a lack of interest in their children, or the end result of what may have been a tenuous father-child relationship during the marriage. The grief of previously highly involved (and now-disengaged) fathers is the most pronounced and remains unresolved: chronic grief is most characteristic of this group, a reflection of their closer attachment to their children before divorce. Psychological factors related to fathers' unresolved grief and inability to adapt to child absence, role loss, and the constraints of the "visiting" relationship, are highly significant factors in their eventual disengagement. Fathers' lack of help-seeking behaviour further compounds the resolution of grief associated with the multiple losses attendant to divorce.

It also cannot be assumed that fathers' post-divorce roles are solely reflections of their choices. Highly involved and attached fathers during the marriage are highly vulnerable in relation to structural constraints and the effects of a judicial mode of custody and access determination, often being caught in a completely impossible dilemma: unable to tolerate the idea of the loss of their children, but given little expectation for success and what many consider to be a highly adversarial means to try to prevent the loss (which they believe will seriously harm their children), they gradually disengage from their children's lives. Such fathers, often unaware of alternatives in regard to both custody and access resolution and post-divorce custody arrangements at the time of divorce, rarely make legal application for custody, although they are the most likely to desire at least partial physical custody of their children. Structural factors, delineating and regulating the boundaries of the post-divorce father-child relationship, are thus also significant determinants of fathers' subsequent loss of contact with their children. Existing analyses of "divorce adjustment" have overlooked this dynamic interaction between the structural consequences of divorce for non-custodial fathers and individual fathers' psychological adaptation to these consequences. The concept of "divorce adjustment" prevalent in the divorce research suggests that it is individuals who are expected to come to terms with (or adjust to) the consequences of divorce; the social structure is not implicated as in need of fundamental change.

Structural Factors

Adversarial nature of legal processes. Although disengaged fathers themselves identified the antagonistic nature of the post-divorce relationship between the former spouses resulting in withheld access as the primary external barrier to their post-divorce contact with their children, it may be argued that legal processes are strongly implicated in exacerbating or creating such conflict. Fathers' overall assessment of their lawyers vis-a-vis helping or hindering their subsequent relationships with their children, and of the judicial system in regard to its appropriateness as a forum for determining child custody and access arrangements, differed between contact and disengaged fathers. Disengaged fathers in particular felt that the system of individual representation characteristic of the traditional adversarial approach of the legal system served to polarize the divorcing spouses. They attributed the provocative behaviour of lawyers and the adversarial nature of the legal system as often creating overt conflict where little such antagonism had previously existed. Direct communication between spouses was usually prohibited by the lawyers of either or both parties, and a more hostile tone introduced via letters and affidavits drafted by lawyers but ostensibly representing their clients' sentiments, which constituted a new medium of communication between the "pursuer" or "plaintiff" and "defendant".

   "They brewed up bad feelings between my wife and myself--the letters that the lawyers have sent us--one trying to intimidate the other. My wife was boiling over a letter written by my lawyer which I knew nothing about, and I was really mad about a letter her lawyer sent me. It's been made into a war."

    "... .a woman goes to her lawyer and says, 'Look, I'm not getting along with this guy, I'm frustrated, I'm fed up," or whatever, and her lawyer then says, 'What a rotten swine,' and then they write up a great big affidavit that accuses the father of being the rottenest son-of-a-btch on this earth. And that's presented to the father, and the father sees this, but it's not worded in the wife's words, it's worded by the lawyer, and they get madder than hell when they see all this nonsense. And then they go and see their lawyer and their lawyer reads this and then he writes up a whole bunch of crap back. So that's the big thump--that's what kills it, right then and there, then it's a big fight all the way in... ."

    They essentially produced a negative tone in the relationship where none existed before. Essentially the adversarial principle produces hostility where there might have been compromise. It results in not being able to do things spontaneously which you would do in a normal relationship - it causes you not to telephone, it causes you not to write. If you do write it is through the lawyer to another lawyer - it makes contact very formal, including contact with children, which is not a natural way of relating. It restricts contact to a particular time, day, or time of year. There is no spontaneity left in the relationship. But the worst thing it does is divide you into two sides and there's no middle ground or common ground which is where we'd normally be. Essentially you have no communication with your wife about the children since everything is filtered through lawyers".

From the research evidence available, it is clear that most lawyers do approach divorce in a traditional adversarial manner (Eekelaar, 1984) and consider that in being partisan and assuming a "fighting" posture they are merely protecting their client's interests (Murch, 1980); the assumption that because two individuals are divorcing they are necessarily in conflict is prevalent (ibid.) However, a sizeable proportion of fathers in the present study did not report a situation of high conflict between the spouses at the time of the separation, before legal consultation, and a third of the fathers expressing a desire for at least partial physical custody of their children reported no overt disagreement between the spouses in that regard at that time. These fathers believed that the possibility of a shared custody arrangement clearly existed at the point of separation:

    "... .we originally had a joint custody agreement, and it was the legal system that tore this apart, it destroyed it. We had agreed beforehand and then this happened - the legal system intervened". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "... .Joint custody was a very real possibility in my mind at that time. It seems to me now that by listening to the lawyer and agreeing to grant sole custody to my wife, that it jeopardized my future relationship with my daughter. My lawyer kept stressing that the most important thing was to make the terms of the property settlement easier--and to do this I would have to agree to my wife having sole custody... .Basically I sacrificed custody in the interests of a property settlement." (Canadian "disengaged" father)

Many disengaged fathers described feeling intimidated by the adversarial approach of the legal system, and were cognizant of the dangers of this type of approach in regard to their children's well-being, another significant factor in their decision not to legally contest the issue of custody. Fathers generally conceived of a custody "battle" in terms of a format of attack - defence in order to impress the judge, with detailed accounts of neglect, abuse, and cruelty presented by both sides in their attempt to "win" their children. Many saw contested custody as more likely to hurt their children (and former spouses) than facilitate the development of a meaningful post-divorce relationship with their children; indeed, their overriding concern was that their children would be used as "pawns" and "weapons" in the "battle", which would likely continue well after the custody hearing:

    "The way the lawyers fight - tit for tat all the time. It's made into a battle; it's bargaining for a human life. It's made worse since the law leans toward the mother in the case of custody. The mother says 'The law is on my side', and I as the father am forced to fight, which I don't want to do ... ." (British "disengaged" father)

    "My wife and I had no opportunity to come face-to-face to discuss our situation--everything transpired between the lawyers. My wife decided to obtain sole custody through the court, and my lawyer felt that I needed to take a 'fighting' posture. My wife certainly used her lawyer this way, which led to a very acrimonious situation. My wife's lawyer prevented me from having contact with my children, so that after two or three months when I finally did see my children, they were visibly scared when they did see me, and were quite reluctant to go out with me. My wife's lawyer used this in court later on." (British "disengaged" father)

    "I continued my efforts toward a reconciliation, mainly by trying to be patient, remaining where I was, patient, in total desolation. I couldn't act in any kind of positive way--I had to endure my suffering in the right way, with integrity. Any action that I could have taken--bringing Michael home with me against my wife's wishes, consulting a lawyer, fighting a custody battle in court--I considered all of these as violent means, which ethically I couldn't do. I thought only about preserving my integrity and enduring it all in the right way--although I admit I cut quite a ridiculous figure in the process." (British "disengaged" father)

Many disengaged fathers considered contested custody--and the use of legal process generally--as a highly adversarial means which did not justify the end they were seeking. Such fathers described being strongly and intimately attached to their children and were primarily concerned with the potential harmful effects of the adversarial process on their children. For these fathers, however, withdrawal from the adversarial process further jeopardized their ongoing contact with their children, as the level of hostility between the spouses had become such that negotiation had effectively become an impossibility.

Feelings of powerlessness and victimization were prevalent among disengaged fathers who, throughout the time of legal negotiation, attempted to maintain their pre-existing bond with their children by not utilizing what they perceived to be an adversarial process means to "win" custody. Their lawyers (or ex-wives' lawyers) nevertheless adopted adversarial means in the legal negotiations that took place. Engaged in an adversarial process, but not wanting to utilize such means to "win" custody, those fathers expressing a strong desire for a shared physical custody arrangement after divorce were viewed with suspicion and their desires and motives were questioned; they were assumed to not genuinely want the burden of full or shared custody but to have ulterior motives in positing such a "threat" or "bluff". In reality, their previous involvement with and attachment to their children made them unable to wage a public "fight", which they perceived would harm their children. Their refusal to adopt such means, however, contributed to their loss of contact with their children.

Disengaged fathers often saw their lawyers (and the legal "divorce industry" as having a vested interest in profiting financially from ongoing conflict, and hence less likely to be alert to the possibilities of reconciliation or reaching an amicable settlement by means of mediation. Fathers described lawyers' tactical manoeuvres toward exacerbating and perpetuating conflict between the former spouses as manipulative and designed to extract financial profit from the breakdown of their clients' family relationships. These fathers came to resent their escalating dependence on their lawyers and the legal system. However, they felt "locked into" the legal process insofar as they had lost trust in their ex-wives, feeling vulnerable in terms of their future relationship with their children and needing the special protection of a lawyer; this loss of trust between the spouses and feelings of vulnerability were seen by fathers to have been deliberately engineered by their lawyers and a legal framework actively promoting such a dependency. In this context, fathers spoke of the slowness and constant delays of the legal machinery and of high legal costs as largely unnecessary.

    "... .the law acts so slowly, and emotional matters should be resolved quickly if there's going to be a balanced outcome. For example, it took six weeks for the fact of non-access to be brought into the court and a further three weeks for it to be dealt with--a total of nine weeks of non-contact had elapsed. The law delays things a lot as well as polarizing parental opinions." (British "disengaged" father)

Finally, disengaged fathers stressed that the use of legal tactics appropriate to the "combat" of litigation, when applied insensitively to issues arising from emotional difficulties in family relationships, could be highly damaging. The judicial system was thus considered by all disengaged fathers to be an inappropriate forum for resolving issues of child custody and access.

   ""... .the whole system is totally barbaric--it is not in the least interested in the children's welfare, as I found out in that court. It's just to get a decision made--they're there to make a decision, but unqualified to make the decision, and more often than not they make the wrong decision, because they do not know the family's circumstances, without liaising or consulting with any member of the family. It's the judge's decision, which I find farcical," (British "disengaged" father)

Identified by fathers themselves as primarily responsible for their loss of contact with their children, was that of obstructed access by the former spouse. Clearly, the less supportive that a custodial mother is toward paternal access, the greater the likelihood of access difficulties and eventual disengagement of the father. The source of maternal hostility to post-divorce father-child contact thus becomes an important question. Inter-spousal hostility after divorce is not necessarily primarily influenced by pre-divorce patterns; while mistrust and anger are almost universally present in varying degrees upon divorce, intensified conflict during and after divorce may be directly related to intervening legal processes. Fathers frequently held their lawyers and the legal system responsible for exacerbating or creating conflict between the spouses. Many fathers initially made attempts to discuss terms of custody and access directly with their wives, but were restrained by their lawyers (as were their wives) from communicating directly, and instructed to negotiate via the lawyers. Negotiations involving lawyers acting as intermediaries typically lasted at least several months, many several years, during which an atmosphere of competition, fear and mistrust prevailed over what was in some cases a spirit of co-operation (despite disagreements) at the time of divorce in regard to post-divorce arrangements for the children. The adversarial nature of legal processes, whether restricted to negotiations between the lawyers or involving court action, makes it highly unlikely that a spirit of friendship and co-operation will survive the divorce. Severe conflict is the end-result of a negotiating environment which effectively forces each party to assume an extreme position.

To test the influence of legal processes in exacerbating or creating post-divorce spousal conflict, the level of conflict between the spouses at the time of separation (before any major legal involvement) was compared with the post-divorce level of friendliness between the former spouses (after legal processes had made their major impact). No correlation was found between the level of inter-spousal conflict at the time of the divorce and the nature of ex-spouses' post-divorce contact; that is, the likelihood of friendly and unfriendly (or non-existent) post-divorce contact did not depend on the level of conflict between spouses at the time of divorce--suggesting the presence of mediating factors operating in the period during divorce which influence the nature of the subsequent relationship.

There was also no association between the level of conflict between the spouses at the time of divorce (separation) and subsequent father-child contact: conflict between the spouses upon separation did not necessarily lead to paternal disengagement. The relationship between paternal contact and the level of conflict between the parents after divorce, however, was highly significant (p < .001): post- but not pre-divorce parental conflict was associated with non-custodial fathers' disengagement from their children. This further suggests that mediating factors are at work during divorce to produce a level of parental conflict strong enough to result in access difficulties for non-custodial fathers, followed by eventual loss of contact.

Significantly, most disengaged fathers described their ex-wives as having believed in fathers' ability to be effective parents, as having confidence in and generally agreeing with fathers' child rearing practices during the marriage. Disagreements over child-related matters within the marriage were reported as relatively rare. The fact that the great majority of divorces involve two capable and loving parents could be used as the basis for developing positive co-parental relationships after divorce; in contrast, within the legal process, former spouses are oriented toward devaluing the relative contribution of the other, and custodial parents toward acting as if non-custodial parent contact is not important for the children. Distorted perceptions of the former spouse appear in fact to be a frequent result of a legal mode of custody and access resolution. Up to the time of legal negotiations, each parent has viewed the other as necessary to the children's lives; the adversarial stance adopted during legal negotiations contributes to a dramatic shift in this perception.

Child custody determination. Traditional access arrangements were considered to be entirely inadequate by those disengaged fathers who perceived themselves as highly involved with their children before divorce. At the time of the divorce, the great majority of these fathers wanted at least partial physical custody of their children; they described their actual legal custody and access arrangements as woefully insufficient--the main issue for these fathers was not one of legal custody and access per se; rather, they were primarily concerned with maintaining a meaningful post-divorce relationship with their children in the form of regular and frequent physical contact.

Among disengaged fathers, there existed a widespread yearning for the children with whom they were no longer in contact. All forty disengaged fathers indicated a desire for "a lot more" contact with their children:

Paternal Contact by Desired Level of Child Contact after Divorce

-------------- A lot more Some more About right A little less

In-Contact 40% 28% 30% 2%

Disengaged 100% - - -

Existing divorce literature, while containing little empirical data in regard to fathers' desired level of contact with their children after divorce, often contains suggestions that fathers simply do not want custody of their children and explains fathers' disengagement primarily in terms of a lack of interest (Eekelaar & Clive, 1977). The findings of this study suggest otherwise: the great majority of non-custodial fathers considered traditional legal access arrangements to be insufficient, and wanted at least partial physical custody. This was most evident in the case of disengaged fathers; dissatisfaction with existing legal custody and access arrangements, as well as with actual physical arrangements, was highest among those non-custodial fathers who had previously enjoyed a relatively high level of involvement, attachment, and influence and had subsequently lost all contact with their children.

The discrepancy between fathers' desires in regard to custody and access and the actual post-divorce arrangements made is striking. Seventy-nine per cent of all of the non-custodial fathers and 88% of the disengaged fathers in the sample indicated that at the time of the divorce, their preferred arrangement was one in which their children could live with them at least part of the time, including overnight stays. Clearly, those fathers who legally disputed custody and forced a court decision (15 of 80 fathers) did not constitute all of those who wanted custody of their children; there appeared to be powerful factors mediating between fathers' stated desires at the time of divorce and the final outcome of paternal non-custody, and between these desires and fathers' subsequent inaction vis-a-vis pursuit of custody.

The role of lawyers was crucial in transforming fathers' aspirations regarding what they could achieve through the legal system; lawyers assumed a key role in persuading fathers not to pursue custody, or lessening their aspirations concerning their level of post-divorce contact with their children. In 55% of cases, lawyers actively discouraged fathers from pursuing custody; only 12% agreed with or encouraged it. Fathers were often told that a "reasonable" amount of post-divorce contact was the "customary" pattern of fortnightly access. In a field that relies heavily on precedent for its decisions, it has been convenient and comfortable to recommend what has gone before; the precedents of maternal custody and twice-monthly paternal access have become, in the eyes of lawyers and the judiciary, not only customary, but somehow developmentally and morally correct (Felner et al, 1985). Fathers wanting custody of or open access to their children are viewed with suspicion; mothers who wish to accommodate such fathers are advised not to "give up" too much (ibid.) For non-custodial fathers, the pattern of "visiting" their children on a weekly or fortnightly basis--at best, 2 days out of every 14--has thus continued, despite fathers' strong dissatisfaction with the limited nature of such contact, children's yearning for increased contact with their fathers, and mothers often feeling overwhelmed by the sole responsibility for their children after divorce.

Lawyers play a central role in providing their clients with a basic knowledge of the law and legal processes, helping them to decide what to ask for, and shaping expectations of what they will get. If lawyers' advice regarding post-divorce contact is discouraging, it is likely that fathers will lower their expectations; if the expectation that the best fathers can hope for is limited access, these expectations shape what fathers strive for--and settle for. Given that most custody and access arrangements only reach the court as a fait accompli, the way in which lawyers advise their clients is an important determinant of the final structural arrangements made. What lawyers advise is influenced by what they think the court will accept ("bargaining in the shadow of the law". The majority of fathers, faced with explicit advice and strong direction from their lawyers toward maternal custody with limited parental access, and convinced on the basis of judicial precedent that they have a limited chance of success through the courts, eventually accept the predominant pattern of weekly or fortnightly "visiting":

    "I got the impression that there would be no problem getting access, getting Andrew to stay with me on weekends and so on - but it didn't work out that way. He also told me that I should forget about custody, and to just concentrate on access, which I now realize was wrong". (Canadian "disengaged" father).

    The lawyer advised me to give the mother interim custody and not to worry about it or fight it. I didn't know at that time that in fact, when you're talking about custody, nothing is 'interim' - anything that is 'interim' means that it is forever. I didn't know that at that time". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "Initially when there's a separation, there should be someplace to go to try to save a relationship, rather than turning to lawyers and finding out what you're going to get and what you're not going to get through a divorce. The legal system makes things happen that should never happen--it calls for no effort on the part of the husband or wife. It's presented as the easiest, as the only alternative. Fathers are told that they should just give up the idea of custody--there's nothing positive fathers can do--and mothers are told that they'll get everything, they're entitled to it, and that the lawyers will get it all for them. For fathers a sense of resignation starts when lawyers tell them that they don't have a chance for keeping the same relationship they had with their children before they separated, and all kinds of other people--society generally--supports this view. It completely takes over as time goes on and fathers realize that the whole situation is hopeless. And they're left feeling completely helpless." (Canadian "disengaged" father)

By pre-adjudicating custody disputes on the basis of anticipations of what would happen were the dispute to be carried to court, lawyers perpetuate the (perceived) maternal custody bias of the judiciary: inaction because of an assumption of prejudice becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and reinforces the status quo. The feeling that fathers are at a severe disadvantage in relation to custody of their children in the courts is widespread:

   "... .They don't give men the benefit of the possibility that they may be good parents. They look at you as if you're doing something wrong, as if you're the guilty party. Lawyers and judges are the mainstay of the problems that men and children have, when it comes to men and children not having the right to maintain their relationship. And they support women if they decide to break the relationship - they promote women's anger and bitterness, and promote destruction of the father-child relationship. Before the separation, I had faith in the legal system. I've been through it and now find myself with no confidence in the system whatsoever. I believe in the truth, and I couldn't believe how full of lies the whole legal system is". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

If a father does not accept his lawyer's advice and seeks to challenge traditional custody and access arrangements, as was the case with a number of fathers in the present study, his lawyer may refuse to proceed with the application and to further represent his client or, if he "agrees" to contest custody, the father's case may not be presented strongly. The difficulty of obtaining legal aid for an action which is unlikely to succeed is endemic for divorcing fathers, while private litigants may be deterred by prohibitive legal costs (Parkinson, 1987). When custody is contested, as was the case with 15 men in the study, fathers and their lawyers are faced with a judiciary that in effect acts according to a maternal presumption, despite the gender-neutral standard of "the best interests of the child". The main issue in contested cases, under the rubric of "the best interests of the child", is usually the tolerable fitness of the mother, above all other factors. The outcome of contested cases, regardless of whom children are living with at the time of the hearing or of pre-divorce parenting patterns is, in the great majority of cases, a maternal custody determination. These contested cases define legal norms; they form the basis of a body of law upon which all divorced fathers are advised.

Custody determinations made by the courts, influencing the type of advice offered to fathers by lawyers, appear to be largely based on the assumption of fathers' secondary importance in their children's lives except in an economic sense; the nature of the pre-divorce father-child relationship does not appear to be a significant factor in legal outcomes. Lawyers' directions rarely differ for divorced fathers; sole maternal custody with limited paternal access was almost universally recommended for the fathers in the sample. There exists, however, a heterogeneity of fathering roles within families. Thus while there were no differences between highly and peripherally involved and attached fathers in the actual advice they received from their lawyers regarding custody and access, the outcome for each group was radically different in terms of satisfaction with the custody and access arrangements that were made and the level of their post-divorce contact with their children. It may be the very fact of uniformity of approach among lawyers and the unvarying nature of judicial resolution of custody and access vis-a-vis fathers with vastly different patterns and experiences of fatherhood that is largely responsible for the poor outcome of those fathers relatively highly involved with and attached to their children during the marriage. Fathers enter the legal process with very different pre-divorce father-child relationship patterns. While such heterogeneity warrants against a homogeneous approach, the legal process, bound by precedent, structures post-divorce relationships according to largely fixed rules that ensure that the "motherhood" and fatherhood" mandates remain intact.

As argued in Chapter 2, the state has a strong interest in the maintenance of appropriate work and family role behaviours. Upon divorce, the.judicial system has a central role to play in limiting child custody and access options, sanctioning and legitimizing traditional structures and relationships, and perpetuating a gender-based division of roles in the post-divorce family. The "motherhood" and "fatherhood" mandates are clear: the father remains responsible for children's economic support, the mother for their care. Thus we see a consistent pattern of decisions that both justify and reinforce a maternal presumption; this judicially-constructed preference has operated as effectively as a statutory directive (Weitzman, 1985; Foote, 1988).


Psychological factors

Grieving process. The intensity of the pre-divorce father-child relationship and its interactions is of paramount importance in determining the outcome of the grieving process of non-custodial fathers. Those fathers most involved with and attached to their children before divorce are most likely to acutely experience the negative effects of the loss or absence of their children, and are the group most at risk of losing contact with their children following divorce.

With a startling intensity, the disengaged fathers in the sample described being emotionally connected to their children in strong and intimate ways, defining their "fathering" role as a central component of their identity:

    ":)efinitions of fathering vary tremendously but I personally would equate it with parenting: a complete commitment to one's child, the major responsibility in one's life, a combination of nurturance, encouraging autonomy and initiative within prescribed limits. It's setting the stage to allow a child to grow and develop his potential to the maximum". (British "disengaged" father)

    "It means having an ongoing and continuing interest in the child's welfare during their life, even if they're doing things of which you don't approve. It means, on the one hand, being available when there are crises and difficult questions, and on the other hand being able to stand back a little and let the young person get a degree of independence. To make the young person value themselves as an individual and not just a clone of mother and father. It also includes a lot of physical things - washing shts, ironing, making sausages. It means sharing things and sharing tasks, particularly when the wife is also doing a part- or a full-time job". (British "disengaged" father)

    "It's a way of living - getting up with your children, eating with them, doing work together, reading with them, hugging them, putting them to sleep, dealing with their fears, and enjoying their pleasures - living with them". (British "disengaged" father)

Contributing to the chronic grief of disengaged fathers is the fact that while a salient loss has in fact occurred, the object of their grief is very much alive, and the grieving process persists as the finality of death is lacking. The predominant feature of the ongoing grief of disengaged fathers is a pervasive sense of preoccupation, loss, and sadness; depressive features are most often cited in fathers' descriptions of their post-divorce relationship with their children:

    "I think of them everyday, almost constantly, although I never see them. I feel I am constantly searching for my children, I think I see their faces in other children's faces. It's a desperate kind of yearning". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I have a constant, very real pain in my chest; there's tension, lack of sleep, constant worry ... .I'm totally preoccupied with my son, and a lot of my time is spent trying not to think about what happened. But mainly it's a feeling of sadness, an emptiness, a kind of darkness". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "I feel depressed and alone. At times I have a total feeling of despair, but I've got to gear my thoughts away from thinking like that. My heart feels like it's been ripped away, but I try to consciously steer myself away from thinking like that. I have to put on a facade of coping". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I'm finding it impossible to adjust. I had a big part of my life that I enjoyed - and lived for - just taken away. I feel a big gap in my life that I can't fill. I feel that the less I see of him the farther away I'm getting from him. But the strain of seeing him for just a few hours a week was too much not only for me but on my son's side as well. The house is like a morgue - it's completely quiet, completely cold. I've felt very depressed but just have had to accept the fact that I've lost him and can't do anything about it. I've just had to accept the fact that I'm no longer part of his life ... .I felt like a rat trapped in a cage. I felt on the verge of violence. I wanted to strike out against every member of her family. I felt paranoid - like I was falling apart, piece by piece. I couldn't concentrate on things - on anything, really. I felt mainly depressed after awhile - completely confused and hopeless after trying to think over what had happened and why it happened. Just a deep sadness about my son and about what had happened". (British "disengaged" father)

    ":)epression, a sense of being unable to help those that I love, a sense of worry about what's going on with the children, a sense of helplessness that the people I love the most I can't help, a sense of utter horror at what society is doing in requiring a father to go through horrendous long legal proceedings just to get permission to see his children, much less have any kind of normal father-child relationship." (Canadian "disengaged" father)

Child absence. Child absence produces a significant difference in fathers' perception of their functioning as parents after divorce. Feeling devalued as parents, previously highly involved and attached fathers described themselves as being rootless, having no structure in their lives, and generally anxious, helpless, and depressed. Actively involved in their children's care and upbringing within the marriage and deriving much satisfaction from parental tasks, these fathers had largely transcended the traditional "fatherhood mandate." They consistently referred to initial fears of a diminished relationship with their children, and subsequent preoccupation with the absence of their children. Feeling deeply attached to their children during the marriage, they saw themselves as primary or at least co-nurturers of their children--and could not, upon divorce, tolerate the idea that this function was in jeopardy.

Although child absence was manifested in a number of ways, the great majority of the now-disengaged fathers in the sample displayed a number of signs of depression, resignation, and a full grief reaction connected to the loss of their children:

   "It's a very great loss. It makes me sad, I have periods of intermittent depression, I wake up at 4.00 a.m., I have a lot of sleepless nights. Of course my present wife has helped tremendously, and encouraged me to channel these feelings into positive endeavors. But there's a tremendous feeling of loss and sadness, and it's a loss which can never be regained. The period of a child's life growing, in Elspeth's case, from 8 to 14, is a vital period for her and a vital period for me, which has been lost forever". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I feel very bad - I feel I am lost with nowhere to go, with no direction. And I feel no one can save me; I don't know how I can survive like this. I can't sleep - all the time I think about them". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "Terrible. It's a piece of my life that's missing. There's not a day in my life that she does not enter my thoughts, in one way or another. It's a tremendous sense of loss that I'm left with--constantly." (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "I feel numb - I don't feel anything anymore. At first I felt completely terrified - for about 4 years. And then I just started losing all feeling. I don't know what I feel right now". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

The impact of child absence was as potent for those fathers who had not seen their children for several years as for those who had lost contact more recently. Time elapsed since the divorce, or since the last contact with their children, did not appear to diminish the intensity of fathers' grief.

Role loss. Child absence is accompanied by role loss: despite the fact that a "real" loss of children occurs after divorce, fathers also lose the status or role of "fatherhood"--for previously highly involved fathers, a major integrative force in their day-to-day functioning and an important component of their identity and status. As the child is lost, so is the "father" role and its functions and privileges.

Disengaged fathers, having enjoyed a relatively active pre-divorce "fathering" role, found it almost impossible to maintain their role as parents in the face of limited contact and a significantly decreased level of influence in all areas of their children's growth and development. The less opportunity fathers had to act as "fathers", the less they saw themselves as "fathers". Role loss can lead to retreatism (Merton, 1968); the most previously involved and attached fathers, faced with child absence and perceived role loss, feel their ability and confidence vis-a-vis their "fathering" role to be drastically undermined:

    "Whereas I know I displayed confidence and skill in rearing my child before the separation, I feel quite uncomfortable around young children now. Even after a few days of being separated from my son, I initially felt anxious and awkward when I did see him and he reacted also in an awkward fashion. I very much question my abilities now, although I still feel a great yearning to be a parent and to utilize the talents I know I have. I just feel a tremendous lack in my life". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I don't really think I have parenting abilities now because I don't live with them. A parent should be a person that's there all the time. Now it's just like seeing someone that you care about, but only during certain periods, certain times--it's not really being a parent. To be a parent you've got to actually be there as they're growing up, and I haven't done that in the last few years. At best I'm just a friend." (British "disengaged" father)

Parkes (1986) and others have identified the gaining of a new identity as crucial in the resolution of the grieving process; this was particularly problematic in cases where a father's identity was largely defined by his relationship with his child. Further, the father-child relationship meets the needs for nurture, affection, love, and status for both father and child; children satisfy longings for genetic immortality, intimacy, and family life--this too is lost after divorce. According to Erikson (1963), "generativity" is a critical stage of the growth of the healthy adult personality, and "regression from generativity" results in a sense of stagnation and interpersonal impoverishment; an individual's development thus necessitates the opportunity for active and ongoing parenting.

The "visiting" relationship. An important psychological barrier to non-custodial fathers' post-divorce contact with their children is their inability to adapt to the constraints of the "visiting" relationship and to construct a new role as "part-time" parent after divorce, a particularly significant component in the disengagement of those fathers who had an active role to play in their children's lives during the marriage. Highly involved and attached fathers face the most abrupt disentanglement from the routines and events of day-to-day life which had structured their parenting role; their ongoing relationship is severely restricted by the legally-determined patterns and constraints of access "visits".

Disengaged fathers' conceptions of what "fatherhood" constituted were diametrically opposed to the structure that had been imposed upon them. For these fathers, "real fatherhood" meant living with their children on a full-time basis and sharing in everyday life with them. They felt "confused" and "lost" without their children and being with them on a full-time basis. They had a particularly strong desire to continue to be influential in all aspects of their children's growth and development, values and lifestyle, which they found difficult or impossible to do within the constraints of "visiting".

Confirming the findings of Wallerstein & Kelly (1980), the study found the pain of the visits themselves--their brevity, artificiality, and superficiality--exascerbated fathers' sense of loss. Access visits symbolized the abrupt ending of the pre-divorce father-child relationship and emphasized what had been lost in the divorce: the loss of their children and of the daily routine that had previously sustained the relationship.

For previously involved and attached fathers, "visiting" their children mainly exacerbated already-intense feelings of loss and deprivation:

   "I find that visiting is very hard. The time is very restricted, the constant burden of a limited, restricted time is a very great pressure. There's a constant feeling that they're not your own any more - you try to fight off this feeling, you feel very emotional about it". (British "disengaged" father)

    "Living with would be so much easier than visiting, if I had the opportunity to do so. Visiting was very, very stressful, extremely upsetting. The changeover in my own case was very, very difficult, because of constraints put upon the children by my wife and her parents. Things weren't made easy because of comments from my mother-in-law or my wife. It was very cold, unfeeling. If I were living with them, there'd be more time to establish a father role, more chance of a bonding, of a better bonding". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I think visiting is just a tease. It's frustrating and it's unsatisfying, and it's not a normal father-to-children relationship... ." (British "disengaged" father)

Disengaged fathers also saw "visiting" as harmful to their children, especially in situations of extreme conflict between the spouses after divorce--adding further to their feelings of hopelessness, resignation and depression:

    "It's no good at all - it affects them badly in all areas of their life. In a visiting relationship the children always get what they demand from the father, because the father will do anything he can so that the children enjoy themselves - just because he's not sure if he'll actually see them the next time. And when they go home the atmosphere with the mother is different, and they miss their father. It affects them at school, at home, and in their relationships with other children. They keep asking themselves why they don't see their father like they did before". (Canadian"disengaged" father)

Those fathers who were highly involved with and attached to their children before divorce and managed to remain in contact with their children after divorce were those who were able to arrange (in most cases mutually with their former spouses) an open and frequent schedule of contact with their children. These fathers reported that a co-operative and supportive post-divorce relationship had developed between the former spouses in regard to their parenting responsibilities. The nature of the non-custodial parent-child relationship is thus affected both by the frequency and length of contact after divorce, with frequent and lengthy contact, (as opposed to "visiting" being much more likely to ensure continuity of contact in the case of fathers actively involved in their children's lives before divorce.

Perceived effects of divorce on children. A primary factor associated with the disengagement of previously highly involved and attached fathers was their perception that their children were being "caught in the middle" of an adversarial legal process and ongoing conflict between their parents. These fathers were reluctant to continue to expose their children to conflict, or to utilize what they considered to be "violent" means to "win" their children's custody, a process they believed to be potentially highly damaging to their children. Fathers' prevailing concern for their children's well-being thus functioned as a "Catch-22" against them: if a father was concerned about exposing his children to what he considered to be a "violent" process, or if he wished to not disrupt his children's lives further by challenging custody and upsetting their "status quo", his ongoing contact with his children after divorce may well have been in jeopardy.

Disengaged fathers were more attuned to the potentially negative impact of the divorce on their children, a reflection of their previous attachment to their children. They believed that their children recognized their fathers' importance in their lives and would be severely affected by the rupture in the relationship. These fathers felt that their children's health and development was very much in jeopardy as a result of father absence after divorce:

   "Given the close relationship that we had, I knew it would affect her negatively. I knew it would affect her, but in what way I didn't know. And I suppose I didn't give it the concern it should have received, in retrospect, because I thought it would only be a temporary situation. I suppose that this is how I've rationalized it". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "I don't feel that they've got a stable life, where they've got someone to fall back on to talk to. I know they've got their mother, but she's with them day after day, and it's not a shared responsibility. She just can't spend the time they need with them, whereas with two parents, you give each other a break, or you bring a different attitude toward them. They've only got one view of life, basically, and they don't have two people to give them a variation." (British "disengaged" father)

    "I think they have lost a sense of security, and there is a total lack of any fatherly role, which I think is very detrimental to them. They've lost the love of and for their father". (Canadian disengaged" father)

    "He's very upset, sad, wondering why I've left, why his life has been turned upside-down. I'm very concerned about the long-term psychological effects--having a chip on his shoulder, wondering why his father left him." (British "disengaged" father)

Paradoxically, disengaged fathers stressed the importance of continued paternal contact as critical to their children's well-being after divorce:

   "It is important to maintain the relationship in spite of the difficulties. It depends on the situation before separation. If the father had very little contact before separation, it's not so important to maintain links. But if he's closely involved in bringing up the child, he has to keep up the relationship. When it comes down to it, a person's security is rooted in his parents. This is very fundamental - security. A child should know where he came from, what his roots are". (British "disengaged" father)

    "The effects on the father are double-edged. A little bit of contact for someone who wishes to be a full-time father is a crumb from the rich man's table, and I would feel that the little bit of contact would add greatly to the father's distress when he goes away, or when the child goes away. But that father is an adult and I think that disadvantage emotionally of the recurrent sore of leaving his own child has to be taken for the sake of that child". (British "disengaged" father)

[Skip]

Interesting perspectives... .why do men give up and what do you think can be done to avoid this? Thoughts?

This article has some interesting background.

Skippy


==============================================

Psychological and Structural Factors Contributing to Disengagement of
Noncustodial Fathers After Divorce

Kruk, E. (1992). "Psychological and Structural Factors Contributing to the Disengagement of Noncustodial Fathers After Divorce," Family and Conciliation Courts Review 29 (2), 81-101 (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts/ Sage Publications).

Most disengaged fathers presented a complex amalgam of reasons for their loss of contact with their children after divorce, rather than one clear cause:

Reasons for Disengagement(N=40)

90% 33% 28% 18% 16% 5%

Access difficulties    Father's decision to cease contact    Practical difficulties (distance,finances, work schedule)    Child(ren) not wanting contact    Legal injunction    Early pattern of no contact (prohibiting future contact)

Most frequently mentioned (by 36 of the 40 disengaged fathers) were difficulties related to access, whereas many of the contact fathers stressed the importance of the support and encouragement of their ex-wives in their maintenance of contact and development of a new parental role. Those fathers who received little or no confirmation of their roles as "fathers" by their former spouses appear most likely to become disengaged from their children's lives:

   "That's the way my wife wants it - she doesn't want me around. And it's very difficult for me because I always feel guilty and wonder 'Did I try hard enough to get access?' I know I've tried every angle, and there's nothing I can really do now, other than what I've done. And the legal system has allowed, has encouraged, my wife to cut off contact between me and my son. They say I'm a swine if I don't pay support, but they say nothing about my not being allowed to see my son". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "My wife's refusal to share the caring of our son, her perception of him as 'her' son and of herself as the only legitimate parent ... .My wife actively breaking off my contact with my son, and her parents' influence in her breaking all ties with me ... .My own inability to see my son on only a sporadic basis, which is nothing like my previous relationship with him or what I think to be fatherhood. Tied in with all of this is a tremendous sense of loss, of sadness, of total humiliation and discouragement". (British "disengaged" father)

    "... .The tension and conflict, the anger that permeated all my contact with my wife and children was impossible to bear. She was really, really angry. Her hands always shook, her voice always trembled--conflict was the central element in our relationship. Each contact involved a major fight, insulting screaming matches where we'd both say really vicious things to each other. It was one huge trauma for the girls. We'd argue and fight, I'd take my daughters, brood all afternoon, come back, and there'd be another big scene. My daughters would listen to this; they'd cry and scream. My wife threatened to call the police; I was in a blind fury. Finally I gave up--it was hopeless. My daughter was in the middle, she was unhappy, wetting the bed. You have the kid's welfare at heart, which my wife used as a convenient weapon against me. She saw me as causing all this damage, as the disruptive influence in my daughter's life. So the solution is to remove this disruptive influence. I was told to stay away; that I was harmful emotionally to my children. But never mind my daughter's constant pleas for her dad; never mind my wife telling my daughter that I had abandoned her. These are all subtle things that my wife wouldn't admit even to herself, but they're what determined the final outcome. After awhile I became afraid to make contact. My wife was perfectly content not to have me re-enter the children's life: that becomes a tremendous barrier--you become afraid of making contact. After awhile you rebuild your life, they rebuild theirs--it becomes easier to accept the status quo."

Linked to ex-wives' lack of support of paternal contact and fathers' feelings of no longer being influential and valued as fathers, were fathers' own decisions to cease contact with their children. The 13 fathers citing this reason spoke of their overwhelming sense of loss and depression, the pain of seeing their children only intermittently, and the fact that an avuncular "visiting" relationship in no sense resembled "real fatherhood" and was perhaps harmful for children as well. Fathers' own decisions to cease contact were inextricably linked to their inability to adapt to the constraints of the "visiting" relationship:

   "The most difficult thing is not seeing them and not actually being there to see them grow up. If you don't see them for three months or six months or whatever, you've missed six months of their life. You've missed the wee things like, 'Dad, the ice-cream van's here' or 'Dad, I've got homework to do' or this and that. And then you've got to say goodbye to them, and it's very frustrating. And you wonder - I still don't really know what's best - I wonder if maybe it would be better to leave them alone and let them live their life, and it's not knowing what to do, not knowing which is best for them. The feeling you get inside yourself everytime you go away: 'Am I doing the right thing by seeing them, would they be better off if I just didn't see them?'... .It's basically just a hurtful relationship. There's a lot of men who really care about their kids, but walk away from them, because there's too much hurt on both sides. But a lot of people don't realize that. I used to be one of them, by the way, who thought really badly about a father who hadn't seen his kids in years. People seemingly label these fathers as uncaring people, but sometimes I wonder if in fact they're more caring, because of the hurt involved, and the separation - and each time you've got your child and your child has to go back - is really hard, is really difficult. And until you go through it, you can't understand it. And I think especially with younger kids, the quicker a parent doesn't see their kids then their kids aren't really realizing that their dad's not there. Maybe it's less hurtful because both the child and parent have to say goodbye to each other, and both of you are practically in tears. There's a sort of silence between you - it's like continual hurt. And men that don't actually go and see their kids again, I quite admire, because they're minimizing the pain on that child - because otherwise it's continual pain. But the pain never goes away for the father, no matter what he does". (British "disengaged" father)

    "Mainly that I couldn't accept the role of simply being a visitor in my kids' lives. I'd been so involved with them, when I lived with them, as a father, that the gulf between simply being somebody who's a visitor, who took them out occasionally, and being a father, was just too wide for me to bridge. And I also felt that it would inevitably lead to resentment on their part about it. I didn't think that I could cope during the time that I did see them as a visitor... .and that probably during the whole of that time I'd be screwed up emotionally to such an extent that that would convey itself to them, and lead to them not wanting to be with me."

Eleven fathers mentioned practical difficulties in exercising access, including problems of distance, transportation, finances, work schedule, or lack of adequate accommodation, but only as a secondary factor in their loss of contact. Seven referred to a lack of confirmation of the non-custodial father role by their children, or their children increasingly distancing themselves from their father after divorce; 6 mentioned the bias of the legal system toward sole maternal custody and the existence of a legal injunction prohibiting the type of contact they had desired; and 2 fathers indicated that they had been unable to overcome a pattern of diminished or no contact established in the months immediately following divorce.

Clearly, a shortcoming of the present study is that only fathers' own stated reasons for disengagement were accessible; corroborative information from other members of the divorced family was not available, and uncritical reliance on self-report data can be problematic as fathers tended to largely underestimate their own role in their loss of contact with their children. Nevertheless, fathers' own interpretations of the disengagement process, not previously examined in the divorce literature, are what they face and act upon; for this reason, any analysis of paternal disengagement must begin with and seriously consider fathers' self-reports. There were many indications in the data, however, that paternal disengagement is a much more complex phenomenon than merely the result of obstruction of access by the former spouse.

Interdependence of structural and psychological factors. A closer scrutiny of the dynamics underlying the process of disengagement suggests that two orders of variables determine the level of post-divorce father-child contact: structural and psychological. The disengagement of non-custodial fathers after divorce is a result of a combination of structural constraints and fathers' own psychological response to the perceived loss of their children. On their own, each is usually insufficient to effect disengagement; combined, they are a potent force mitigating against post-divorce paternal contact. Both structural and psychological factors are inculpated as critical mediating variables between divorce and disengagement: while divorce represents a situation where fathers are judicially, culturally, and legislatively disadvantaged on the basis of gender, fathers' psychological adjustment to the consequences of divorce is the other critical factor in the disengagement equation.

Non-custodial fathers' disengagement from their children should not be interpreted as a lack of interest in their children, or the end result of what may have been a tenuous father-child relationship during the marriage. The grief of previously highly involved (and now-disengaged) fathers is the most pronounced and remains unresolved: chronic grief is most characteristic of this group, a reflection of their closer attachment to their children before divorce. Psychological factors related to fathers' unresolved grief and inability to adapt to child absence, role loss, and the constraints of the "visiting" relationship, are highly significant factors in their eventual disengagement. Fathers' lack of help-seeking behaviour further compounds the resolution of grief associated with the multiple losses attendant to divorce.

It also cannot be assumed that fathers' post-divorce roles are solely reflections of their choices. Highly involved and attached fathers during the marriage are highly vulnerable in relation to structural constraints and the effects of a judicial mode of custody and access determination, often being caught in a completely impossible dilemma: unable to tolerate the idea of the loss of their children, but given little expectation for success and what many consider to be a highly adversarial means to try to prevent the loss (which they believe will seriously harm their children), they gradually disengage from their children's lives. Such fathers, often unaware of alternatives in regard to both custody and access resolution and post-divorce custody arrangements at the time of divorce, rarely make legal application for custody, although they are the most likely to desire at least partial physical custody of their children. Structural factors, delineating and regulating the boundaries of the post-divorce father-child relationship, are thus also significant determinants of fathers' subsequent loss of contact with their children. Existing analyses of "divorce adjustment" have overlooked this dynamic interaction between the structural consequences of divorce for non-custodial fathers and individual fathers' psychological adaptation to these consequences. The concept of "divorce adjustment" prevalent in the divorce research suggests that it is individuals who are expected to come to terms with (or adjust to) the consequences of divorce; the social structure is not implicated as in need of fundamental change.

Structural Factors

Adversarial nature of legal processes. Although disengaged fathers themselves identified the antagonistic nature of the post-divorce relationship between the former spouses resulting in withheld access as the primary external barrier to their post-divorce contact with their children, it may be argued that legal processes are strongly implicated in exacerbating or creating such conflict. Fathers' overall assessment of their lawyers vis-a-vis helping or hindering their subsequent relationships with their children, and of the judicial system in regard to its appropriateness as a forum for determining child custody and access arrangements, differed between contact and disengaged fathers. Disengaged fathers in particular felt that the system of individual representation characteristic of the traditional adversarial approach of the legal system served to polarize the divorcing spouses. They attributed the provocative behaviour of lawyers and the adversarial nature of the legal system as often creating overt conflict where little such antagonism had previously existed. Direct communication between spouses was usually prohibited by the lawyers of either or both parties, and a more hostile tone introduced via letters and affidavits drafted by lawyers but ostensibly representing their clients' sentiments, which constituted a new medium of communication between the "pursuer" or "plaintiff" and "defendant".

   "They brewed up bad feelings between my wife and myself--the letters that the lawyers have sent us--one trying to intimidate the other. My wife was boiling over a letter written by my lawyer which I knew nothing about, and I was really mad about a letter her lawyer sent me. It's been made into a war."

    "... .a woman goes to her lawyer and says, 'Look, I'm not getting along with this guy, I'm frustrated, I'm fed up," or whatever, and her lawyer then says, 'What a rotten swine,' and then they write up a great big affidavit that accuses the father of being the rottenest son-of-a-btch on this earth. And that's presented to the father, and the father sees this, but it's not worded in the wife's words, it's worded by the lawyer, and they get madder than hell when they see all this nonsense. And then they go and see their lawyer and their lawyer reads this and then he writes up a whole bunch of crap back. So that's the big thump--that's what kills it, right then and there, then it's a big fight all the way in... ."

    They essentially produced a negative tone in the relationship where none existed before. Essentially the adversarial principle produces hostility where there might have been compromise. It results in not being able to do things spontaneously which you would do in a normal relationship - it causes you not to telephone, it causes you not to write. If you do write it is through the lawyer to another lawyer - it makes contact very formal, including contact with children, which is not a natural way of relating. It restricts contact to a particular time, day, or time of year. There is no spontaneity left in the relationship. But the worst thing it does is divide you into two sides and there's no middle ground or common ground which is where we'd normally be. Essentially you have no communication with your wife about the children since everything is filtered through lawyers".

From the research evidence available, it is clear that most lawyers do approach divorce in a traditional adversarial manner (Eekelaar, 1984) and consider that in being partisan and assuming a "fighting" posture they are merely protecting their client's interests (Murch, 1980); the assumption that because two individuals are divorcing they are necessarily in conflict is prevalent (ibid.) However, a sizeable proportion of fathers in the present study did not report a situation of high conflict between the spouses at the time of the separation, before legal consultation, and a third of the fathers expressing a desire for at least partial physical custody of their children reported no overt disagreement between the spouses in that regard at that time. These fathers believed that the possibility of a shared custody arrangement clearly existed at the point of separation:

    "... .we originally had a joint custody agreement, and it was the legal system that tore this apart, it destroyed it. We had agreed beforehand and then this happened - the legal system intervened". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "... .Joint custody was a very real possibility in my mind at that time. It seems to me now that by listening to the lawyer and agreeing to grant sole custody to my wife, that it jeopardized my future relationship with my daughter. My lawyer kept stressing that the most important thing was to make the terms of the property settlement easier--and to do this I would have to agree to my wife having sole custody... .Basically I sacrificed custody in the interests of a property settlement." (Canadian "disengaged" father)

Many disengaged fathers described feeling intimidated by the adversarial approach of the legal system, and were cognizant of the dangers of this type of approach in regard to their children's well-being, another significant factor in their decision not to legally contest the issue of custody. Fathers generally conceived of a custody "battle" in terms of a format of attack - defence in order to impress the judge, with detailed accounts of neglect, abuse, and cruelty presented by both sides in their attempt to "win" their children. Many saw contested custody as more likely to hurt their children (and former spouses) than facilitate the development of a meaningful post-divorce relationship with their children; indeed, their overriding concern was that their children would be used as "pawns" and "weapons" in the "battle", which would likely continue well after the custody hearing:

    "The way the lawyers fight - tit for tat all the time. It's made into a battle; it's bargaining for a human life. It's made worse since the law leans toward the mother in the case of custody. The mother says 'The law is on my side', and I as the father am forced to fight, which I don't want to do ... ." (British "disengaged" father)

    "My wife and I had no opportunity to come face-to-face to discuss our situation--everything transpired between the lawyers. My wife decided to obtain sole custody through the court, and my lawyer felt that I needed to take a 'fighting' posture. My wife certainly used her lawyer this way, which led to a very acrimonious situation. My wife's lawyer prevented me from having contact with my children, so that after two or three months when I finally did see my children, they were visibly scared when they did see me, and were quite reluctant to go out with me. My wife's lawyer used this in court later on." (British "disengaged" father)

    "I continued my efforts toward a reconciliation, mainly by trying to be patient, remaining where I was, patient, in total desolation. I couldn't act in any kind of positive way--I had to endure my suffering in the right way, with integrity. Any action that I could have taken--bringing Michael home with me against my wife's wishes, consulting a lawyer, fighting a custody battle in court--I considered all of these as violent means, which ethically I couldn't do. I thought only about preserving my integrity and enduring it all in the right way--although I admit I cut quite a ridiculous figure in the process." (British "disengaged" father)

Many disengaged fathers considered contested custody--and the use of legal process generally--as a highly adversarial means which did not justify the end they were seeking. Such fathers described being strongly and intimately attached to their children and were primarily concerned with the potential harmful effects of the adversarial process on their children. For these fathers, however, withdrawal from the adversarial process further jeopardized their ongoing contact with their children, as the level of hostility between the spouses had become such that negotiation had effectively become an impossibility.

Feelings of powerlessness and victimization were prevalent among disengaged fathers who, throughout the time of legal negotiation, attempted to maintain their pre-existing bond with their children by not utilizing what they perceived to be an adversarial process means to "win" custody. Their lawyers (or ex-wives' lawyers) nevertheless adopted adversarial means in the legal negotiations that took place. Engaged in an adversarial process, but not wanting to utilize such means to "win" custody, those fathers expressing a strong desire for a shared physical custody arrangement after divorce were viewed with suspicion and their desires and motives were questioned; they were assumed to not genuinely want the burden of full or shared custody but to have ulterior motives in positing such a "threat" or "bluff". In reality, their previous involvement with and attachment to their children made them unable to wage a public "fight", which they perceived would harm their children. Their refusal to adopt such means, however, contributed to their loss of contact with their children.

Disengaged fathers often saw their lawyers (and the legal "divorce industry" as having a vested interest in profiting financially from ongoing conflict, and hence less likely to be alert to the possibilities of reconciliation or reaching an amicable settlement by means of mediation. Fathers described lawyers' tactical manoeuvres toward exacerbating and perpetuating conflict between the former spouses as manipulative and designed to extract financial profit from the breakdown of their clients' family relationships. These fathers came to resent their escalating dependence on their lawyers and the legal system. However, they felt "locked into" the legal process insofar as they had lost trust in their ex-wives, feeling vulnerable in terms of their future relationship with their children and needing the special protection of a lawyer; this loss of trust between the spouses and feelings of vulnerability were seen by fathers to have been deliberately engineered by their lawyers and a legal framework actively promoting such a dependency. In this context, fathers spoke of the slowness and constant delays of the legal machinery and of high legal costs as largely unnecessary.

    "... .the law acts so slowly, and emotional matters should be resolved quickly if there's going to be a balanced outcome. For example, it took six weeks for the fact of non-access to be brought into the court and a further three weeks for it to be dealt with--a total of nine weeks of non-contact had elapsed. The law delays things a lot as well as polarizing parental opinions." (British "disengaged" father)

Finally, disengaged fathers stressed that the use of legal tactics appropriate to the "combat" of litigation, when applied insensitively to issues arising from emotional difficulties in family relationships, could be highly damaging. The judicial system was thus considered by all disengaged fathers to be an inappropriate forum for resolving issues of child custody and access.

   ""... .the whole system is totally barbaric--it is not in the least interested in the children's welfare, as I found out in that court. It's just to get a decision made--they're there to make a decision, but unqualified to make the decision, and more often than not they make the wrong decision, because they do not know the family's circumstances, without liaising or consulting with any member of the family. It's the judge's decision, which I find farcical," (British "disengaged" father)

Identified by fathers themselves as primarily responsible for their loss of contact with their children, was that of obstructed access by the former spouse. Clearly, the less supportive that a custodial mother is toward paternal access, the greater the likelihood of access difficulties and eventual disengagement of the father. The source of maternal hostility to post-divorce father-child contact thus becomes an important question. Inter-spousal hostility after divorce is not necessarily primarily influenced by pre-divorce patterns; while mistrust and anger are almost universally present in varying degrees upon divorce, intensified conflict during and after divorce may be directly related to intervening legal processes. Fathers frequently held their lawyers and the legal system responsible for exacerbating or creating conflict between the spouses. Many fathers initially made attempts to discuss terms of custody and access directly with their wives, but were restrained by their lawyers (as were their wives) from communicating directly, and instructed to negotiate via the lawyers. Negotiations involving lawyers acting as intermediaries typically lasted at least several months, many several years, during which an atmosphere of competition, fear and mistrust prevailed over what was in some cases a spirit of co-operation (despite disagreements) at the time of divorce in regard to post-divorce arrangements for the children. The adversarial nature of legal processes, whether restricted to negotiations between the lawyers or involving court action, makes it highly unlikely that a spirit of friendship and co-operation will survive the divorce. Severe conflict is the end-result of a negotiating environment which effectively forces each party to assume an extreme position.

To test the influence of legal processes in exacerbating or creating post-divorce spousal conflict, the level of conflict between the spouses at the time of separation (before any major legal involvement) was compared with the post-divorce level of friendliness between the former spouses (after legal processes had made their major impact). No correlation was found between the level of inter-spousal conflict at the time of the divorce and the nature of ex-spouses' post-divorce contact; that is, the likelihood of friendly and unfriendly (or non-existent) post-divorce contact did not depend on the level of conflict between spouses at the time of divorce--suggesting the presence of mediating factors operating in the period during divorce which influence the nature of the subsequent relationship.

There was also no association between the level of conflict between the spouses at the time of divorce (separation) and subsequent father-child contact: conflict between the spouses upon separation did not necessarily lead to paternal disengagement. The relationship between paternal contact and the level of conflict between the parents after divorce, however, was highly significant (p < .001): post- but not pre-divorce parental conflict was associated with non-custodial fathers' disengagement from their children. This further suggests that mediating factors are at work during divorce to produce a level of parental conflict strong enough to result in access difficulties for non-custodial fathers, followed by eventual loss of contact.

Significantly, most disengaged fathers described their ex-wives as having believed in fathers' ability to be effective parents, as having confidence in and generally agreeing with fathers' child rearing practices during the marriage. Disagreements over child-related matters within the marriage were reported as relatively rare. The fact that the great majority of divorces involve two capable and loving parents could be used as the basis for developing positive co-parental relationships after divorce; in contrast, within the legal process, former spouses are oriented toward devaluing the relative contribution of the other, and custodial parents toward acting as if non-custodial parent contact is not important for the children. Distorted perceptions of the former spouse appear in fact to be a frequent result of a legal mode of custody and access resolution. Up to the time of legal negotiations, each parent has viewed the other as necessary to the children's lives; the adversarial stance adopted during legal negotiations contributes to a dramatic shift in this perception.

Child custody determination. Traditional access arrangements were considered to be entirely inadequate by those disengaged fathers who perceived themselves as highly involved with their children before divorce. At the time of the divorce, the great majority of these fathers wanted at least partial physical custody of their children; they described their actual legal custody and access arrangements as woefully insufficient--the main issue for these fathers was not one of legal custody and access per se; rather, they were primarily concerned with maintaining a meaningful post-divorce relationship with their children in the form of regular and frequent physical contact.

Among disengaged fathers, there existed a widespread yearning for the children with whom they were no longer in contact. All forty disengaged fathers indicated a desire for "a lot more" contact with their children:

Paternal Contact by Desired Level of Child Contact after Divorce

-------------- A lot more Some more About right A little less

In-Contact 40% 28% 30% 2%

Disengaged 100% - - -

Existing divorce literature, while containing little empirical data in regard to fathers' desired level of contact with their children after divorce, often contains suggestions that fathers simply do not want custody of their children and explains fathers' disengagement primarily in terms of a lack of interest (Eekelaar & Clive, 1977). The findings of this study suggest otherwise: the great majority of non-custodial fathers considered traditional legal access arrangements to be insufficient, and wanted at least partial physical custody. This was most evident in the case of disengaged fathers; dissatisfaction with existing legal custody and access arrangements, as well as with actual physical arrangements, was highest among those non-custodial fathers who had previously enjoyed a relatively high level of involvement, attachment, and influence and had subsequently lost all contact with their children.

The discrepancy between fathers' desires in regard to custody and access and the actual post-divorce arrangements made is striking. Seventy-nine per cent of all of the non-custodial fathers and 88% of the disengaged fathers in the sample indicated that at the time of the divorce, their preferred arrangement was one in which their children could live with them at least part of the time, including overnight stays. Clearly, those fathers who legally disputed custody and forced a court decision (15 of 80 fathers) did not constitute all of those who wanted custody of their children; there appeared to be powerful factors mediating between fathers' stated desires at the time of divorce and the final outcome of paternal non-custody, and between these desires and fathers' subsequent inaction vis-a-vis pursuit of custody.

The role of lawyers was crucial in transforming fathers' aspirations regarding what they could achieve through the legal system; lawyers assumed a key role in persuading fathers not to pursue custody, or lessening their aspirations concerning their level of post-divorce contact with their children. In 55% of cases, lawyers actively discouraged fathers from pursuing custody; only 12% agreed with or encouraged it. Fathers were often told that a "reasonable" amount of post-divorce contact was the "customary" pattern of fortnightly access. In a field that relies heavily on precedent for its decisions, it has been convenient and comfortable to recommend what has gone before; the precedents of maternal custody and twice-monthly paternal access have become, in the eyes of lawyers and the judiciary, not only customary, but somehow developmentally and morally correct (Felner et al, 1985). Fathers wanting custody of or open access to their children are viewed with suspicion; mothers who wish to accommodate such fathers are advised not to "give up" too much (ibid.) For non-custodial fathers, the pattern of "visiting" their children on a weekly or fortnightly basis--at best, 2 days out of every 14--has thus continued, despite fathers' strong dissatisfaction with the limited nature of such contact, children's yearning for increased contact with their fathers, and mothers often feeling overwhelmed by the sole responsibility for their children after divorce.

Lawyers play a central role in providing their clients with a basic knowledge of the law and legal processes, helping them to decide what to ask for, and shaping expectations of what they will get. If lawyers' advice regarding post-divorce contact is discouraging, it is likely that fathers will lower their expectations; if the expectation that the best fathers can hope for is limited access, these expectations shape what fathers strive for--and settle for. Given that most custody and access arrangements only reach the court as a fait accompli, the way in which lawyers advise their clients is an important determinant of the final structural arrangements made. What lawyers advise is influenced by what they think the court will accept ("bargaining in the shadow of the law". The majority of fathers, faced with explicit advice and strong direction from their lawyers toward maternal custody with limited parental access, and convinced on the basis of judicial precedent that they have a limited chance of success through the courts, eventually accept the predominant pattern of weekly or fortnightly "visiting":

    "I got the impression that there would be no problem getting access, getting Andrew to stay with me on weekends and so on - but it didn't work out that way. He also told me that I should forget about custody, and to just concentrate on access, which I now realize was wrong". (Canadian "disengaged" father).

    The lawyer advised me to give the mother interim custody and not to worry about it or fight it. I didn't know at that time that in fact, when you're talking about custody, nothing is 'interim' - anything that is 'interim' means that it is forever. I didn't know that at that time". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "Initially when there's a separation, there should be someplace to go to try to save a relationship, rather than turning to lawyers and finding out what you're going to get and what you're not going to get through a divorce. The legal system makes things happen that should never happen--it calls for no effort on the part of the husband or wife. It's presented as the easiest, as the only alternative. Fathers are told that they should just give up the idea of custody--there's nothing positive fathers can do--and mothers are told that they'll get everything, they're entitled to it, and that the lawyers will get it all for them. For fathers a sense of resignation starts when lawyers tell them that they don't have a chance for keeping the same relationship they had with their children before they separated, and all kinds of other people--society generally--supports this view. It completely takes over as time goes on and fathers realize that the whole situation is hopeless. And they're left feeling completely helpless." (Canadian "disengaged" father)

By pre-adjudicating custody disputes on the basis of anticipations of what would happen were the dispute to be carried to court, lawyers perpetuate the (perceived) maternal custody bias of the judiciary: inaction because of an assumption of prejudice becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and reinforces the status quo. The feeling that fathers are at a severe disadvantage in relation to custody of their children in the courts is widespread:

   "... .They don't give men the benefit of the possibility that they may be good parents. They look at you as if you're doing something wrong, as if you're the guilty party. Lawyers and judges are the mainstay of the problems that men and children have, when it comes to men and children not having the right to maintain their relationship. And they support women if they decide to break the relationship - they promote women's anger and bitterness, and promote destruction of the father-child relationship. Before the separation, I had faith in the legal system. I've been through it and now find myself with no confidence in the system whatsoever. I believe in the truth, and I couldn't believe how full of lies the whole legal system is". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

If a father does not accept his lawyer's advice and seeks to challenge traditional custody and access arrangements, as was the case with a number of fathers in the present study, his lawyer may refuse to proceed with the application and to further represent his client or, if he "agrees" to contest custody, the father's case may not be presented strongly. The difficulty of obtaining legal aid for an action which is unlikely to succeed is endemic for divorcing fathers, while private litigants may be deterred by prohibitive legal costs (Parkinson, 1987). When custody is contested, as was the case with 15 men in the study, fathers and their lawyers are faced with a judiciary that in effect acts according to a maternal presumption, despite the gender-neutral standard of "the best interests of the child". The main issue in contested cases, under the rubric of "the best interests of the child", is usually the tolerable fitness of the mother, above all other factors. The outcome of contested cases, regardless of whom children are living with at the time of the hearing or of pre-divorce parenting patterns is, in the great majority of cases, a maternal custody determination. These contested cases define legal norms; they form the basis of a body of law upon which all divorced fathers are advised.

Custody determinations made by the courts, influencing the type of advice offered to fathers by lawyers, appear to be largely based on the assumption of fathers' secondary importance in their children's lives except in an economic sense; the nature of the pre-divorce father-child relationship does not appear to be a significant factor in legal outcomes. Lawyers' directions rarely differ for divorced fathers; sole maternal custody with limited paternal access was almost universally recommended for the fathers in the sample. There exists, however, a heterogeneity of fathering roles within families. Thus while there were no differences between highly and peripherally involved and attached fathers in the actual advice they received from their lawyers regarding custody and access, the outcome for each group was radically different in terms of satisfaction with the custody and access arrangements that were made and the level of their post-divorce contact with their children. It may be the very fact of uniformity of approach among lawyers and the unvarying nature of judicial resolution of custody and access vis-a-vis fathers with vastly different patterns and experiences of fatherhood that is largely responsible for the poor outcome of those fathers relatively highly involved with and attached to their children during the marriage. Fathers enter the legal process with very different pre-divorce father-child relationship patterns. While such heterogeneity warrants against a homogeneous approach, the legal process, bound by precedent, structures post-divorce relationships according to largely fixed rules that ensure that the "motherhood" and fatherhood" mandates remain intact.

As argued in Chapter 2, the state has a strong interest in the maintenance of appropriate work and family role behaviours. Upon divorce, the.judicial system has a central role to play in limiting child custody and access options, sanctioning and legitimizing traditional structures and relationships, and perpetuating a gender-based division of roles in the post-divorce family. The "motherhood" and "fatherhood" mandates are clear: the father remains responsible for children's economic support, the mother for their care. Thus we see a consistent pattern of decisions that both justify and reinforce a maternal presumption; this judicially-constructed preference has operated as effectively as a statutory directive (Weitzman, 1985; Foote, 1988).


Psychological factors

Grieving process. The intensity of the pre-divorce father-child relationship and its interactions is of paramount importance in determining the outcome of the grieving process of non-custodial fathers. Those fathers most involved with and attached to their children before divorce are most likely to acutely experience the negative effects of the loss or absence of their children, and are the group most at risk of losing contact with their children following divorce.

With a startling intensity, the disengaged fathers in the sample described being emotionally connected to their children in strong and intimate ways, defining their "fathering" role as a central component of their identity:

    ":)efinitions of fathering vary tremendously but I personally would equate it with parenting: a complete commitment to one's child, the major responsibility in one's life, a combination of nurturance, encouraging autonomy and initiative within prescribed limits. It's setting the stage to allow a child to grow and develop his potential to the maximum". (British "disengaged" father)

    "It means having an ongoing and continuing interest in the child's welfare during their life, even if they're doing things of which you don't approve. It means, on the one hand, being available when there are crises and difficult questions, and on the other hand being able to stand back a little and let the young person get a degree of independence. To make the young person value themselves as an individual and not just a clone of mother and father. It also includes a lot of physical things - washing shts, ironing, making sausages. It means sharing things and sharing tasks, particularly when the wife is also doing a part- or a full-time job". (British "disengaged" father)

    "It's a way of living - getting up with your children, eating with them, doing work together, reading with them, hugging them, putting them to sleep, dealing with their fears, and enjoying their pleasures - living with them". (British "disengaged" father)

Contributing to the chronic grief of disengaged fathers is the fact that while a salient loss has in fact occurred, the object of their grief is very much alive, and the grieving process persists as the finality of death is lacking. The predominant feature of the ongoing grief of disengaged fathers is a pervasive sense of preoccupation, loss, and sadness; depressive features are most often cited in fathers' descriptions of their post-divorce relationship with their children:

    "I think of them everyday, almost constantly, although I never see them. I feel I am constantly searching for my children, I think I see their faces in other children's faces. It's a desperate kind of yearning". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I have a constant, very real pain in my chest; there's tension, lack of sleep, constant worry ... .I'm totally preoccupied with my son, and a lot of my time is spent trying not to think about what happened. But mainly it's a feeling of sadness, an emptiness, a kind of darkness". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "I feel depressed and alone. At times I have a total feeling of despair, but I've got to gear my thoughts away from thinking like that. My heart feels like it's been ripped away, but I try to consciously steer myself away from thinking like that. I have to put on a facade of coping". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I'm finding it impossible to adjust. I had a big part of my life that I enjoyed - and lived for - just taken away. I feel a big gap in my life that I can't fill. I feel that the less I see of him the farther away I'm getting from him. But the strain of seeing him for just a few hours a week was too much not only for me but on my son's side as well. The house is like a morgue - it's completely quiet, completely cold. I've felt very depressed but just have had to accept the fact that I've lost him and can't do anything about it. I've just had to accept the fact that I'm no longer part of his life ... .I felt like a rat trapped in a cage. I felt on the verge of violence. I wanted to strike out against every member of her family. I felt paranoid - like I was falling apart, piece by piece. I couldn't concentrate on things - on anything, really. I felt mainly depressed after awhile - completely confused and hopeless after trying to think over what had happened and why it happened. Just a deep sadness about my son and about what had happened". (British "disengaged" father)

    ":)epression, a sense of being unable to help those that I love, a sense of worry about what's going on with the children, a sense of helplessness that the people I love the most I can't help, a sense of utter horror at what society is doing in requiring a father to go through horrendous long legal proceedings just to get permission to see his children, much less have any kind of normal father-child relationship." (Canadian "disengaged" father)

Child absence. Child absence produces a significant difference in fathers' perception of their functioning as parents after divorce. Feeling devalued as parents, previously highly involved and attached fathers described themselves as being rootless, having no structure in their lives, and generally anxious, helpless, and depressed. Actively involved in their children's care and upbringing within the marriage and deriving much satisfaction from parental tasks, these fathers had largely transcended the traditional "fatherhood mandate." They consistently referred to initial fears of a diminished relationship with their children, and subsequent preoccupation with the absence of their children. Feeling deeply attached to their children during the marriage, they saw themselves as primary or at least co-nurturers of their children--and could not, upon divorce, tolerate the idea that this function was in jeopardy.

Although child absence was manifested in a number of ways, the great majority of the now-disengaged fathers in the sample displayed a number of signs of depression, resignation, and a full grief reaction connected to the loss of their children:

   "It's a very great loss. It makes me sad, I have periods of intermittent depression, I wake up at 4.00 a.m., I have a lot of sleepless nights. Of course my present wife has helped tremendously, and encouraged me to channel these feelings into positive endeavors. But there's a tremendous feeling of loss and sadness, and it's a loss which can never be regained. The period of a child's life growing, in Elspeth's case, from 8 to 14, is a vital period for her and a vital period for me, which has been lost forever". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I feel very bad - I feel I am lost with nowhere to go, with no direction. And I feel no one can save me; I don't know how I can survive like this. I can't sleep - all the time I think about them". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "Terrible. It's a piece of my life that's missing. There's not a day in my life that she does not enter my thoughts, in one way or another. It's a tremendous sense of loss that I'm left with--constantly." (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "I feel numb - I don't feel anything anymore. At first I felt completely terrified - for about 4 years. And then I just started losing all feeling. I don't know what I feel right now". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

The impact of child absence was as potent for those fathers who had not seen their children for several years as for those who had lost contact more recently. Time elapsed since the divorce, or since the last contact with their children, did not appear to diminish the intensity of fathers' grief.

Role loss. Child absence is accompanied by role loss: despite the fact that a "real" loss of children occurs after divorce, fathers also lose the status or role of "fatherhood"--for previously highly involved fathers, a major integrative force in their day-to-day functioning and an important component of their identity and status. As the child is lost, so is the "father" role and its functions and privileges.

Disengaged fathers, having enjoyed a relatively active pre-divorce "fathering" role, found it almost impossible to maintain their role as parents in the face of limited contact and a significantly decreased level of influence in all areas of their children's growth and development. The less opportunity fathers had to act as "fathers", the less they saw themselves as "fathers". Role loss can lead to retreatism (Merton, 1968); the most previously involved and attached fathers, faced with child absence and perceived role loss, feel their ability and confidence vis-a-vis their "fathering" role to be drastically undermined:

    "Whereas I know I displayed confidence and skill in rearing my child before the separation, I feel quite uncomfortable around young children now. Even after a few days of being separated from my son, I initially felt anxious and awkward when I did see him and he reacted also in an awkward fashion. I very much question my abilities now, although I still feel a great yearning to be a parent and to utilize the talents I know I have. I just feel a tremendous lack in my life". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I don't really think I have parenting abilities now because I don't live with them. A parent should be a person that's there all the time. Now it's just like seeing someone that you care about, but only during certain periods, certain times--it's not really being a parent. To be a parent you've got to actually be there as they're growing up, and I haven't done that in the last few years. At best I'm just a friend." (British "disengaged" father)

Parkes (1986) and others have identified the gaining of a new identity as crucial in the resolution of the grieving process; this was particularly problematic in cases where a father's identity was largely defined by his relationship with his child. Further, the father-child relationship meets the needs for nurture, affection, love, and status for both father and child; children satisfy longings for genetic immortality, intimacy, and family life--this too is lost after divorce. According to Erikson (1963), "generativity" is a critical stage of the growth of the healthy adult personality, and "regression from generativity" results in a sense of stagnation and interpersonal impoverishment; an individual's development thus necessitates the opportunity for active and ongoing parenting.

The "visiting" relationship. An important psychological barrier to non-custodial fathers' post-divorce contact with their children is their inability to adapt to the constraints of the "visiting" relationship and to construct a new role as "part-time" parent after divorce, a particularly significant component in the disengagement of those fathers who had an active role to play in their children's lives during the marriage. Highly involved and attached fathers face the most abrupt disentanglement from the routines and events of day-to-day life which had structured their parenting role; their ongoing relationship is severely restricted by the legally-determined patterns and constraints of access "visits".

Disengaged fathers' conceptions of what "fatherhood" constituted were diametrically opposed to the structure that had been imposed upon them. For these fathers, "real fatherhood" meant living with their children on a full-time basis and sharing in everyday life with them. They felt "confused" and "lost" without their children and being with them on a full-time basis. They had a particularly strong desire to continue to be influential in all aspects of their children's growth and development, values and lifestyle, which they found difficult or impossible to do within the constraints of "visiting".

Confirming the findings of Wallerstein & Kelly (1980), the study found the pain of the visits themselves--their brevity, artificiality, and superficiality--exascerbated fathers' sense of loss. Access visits symbolized the abrupt ending of the pre-divorce father-child relationship and emphasized what had been lost in the divorce: the loss of their children and of the daily routine that had previously sustained the relationship.

For previously involved and attached fathers, "visiting" their children mainly exacerbated already-intense feelings of loss and deprivation:

   "I find that visiting is very hard. The time is very restricted, the constant burden of a limited, restricted time is a very great pressure. There's a constant feeling that they're not your own any more - you try to fight off this feeling, you feel very emotional about it". (British "disengaged" father)

    "Living with would be so much easier than visiting, if I had the opportunity to do so. Visiting was very, very stressful, extremely upsetting. The changeover in my own case was very, very difficult, because of constraints put upon the children by my wife and her parents. Things weren't made easy because of comments from my mother-in-law or my wife. It was very cold, unfeeling. If I were living with them, there'd be more time to establish a father role, more chance of a bonding, of a better bonding". (British "disengaged" father)

    "I think visiting is just a tease. It's frustrating and it's unsatisfying, and it's not a normal father-to-children relationship... ." (British "disengaged" father)

Disengaged fathers also saw "visiting" as harmful to their children, especially in situations of extreme conflict between the spouses after divorce--adding further to their feelings of hopelessness, resignation and depression:

    "It's no good at all - it affects them badly in all areas of their life. In a visiting relationship the children always get what they demand from the father, because the father will do anything he can so that the children enjoy themselves - just because he's not sure if he'll actually see them the next time. And when they go home the atmosphere with the mother is different, and they miss their father. It affects them at school, at home, and in their relationships with other children. They keep asking themselves why they don't see their father like they did before". (Canadian"disengaged" father)

Those fathers who were highly involved with and attached to their children before divorce and managed to remain in contact with their children after divorce were those who were able to arrange (in most cases mutually with their former spouses) an open and frequent schedule of contact with their children. These fathers reported that a co-operative and supportive post-divorce relationship had developed between the former spouses in regard to their parenting responsibilities. The nature of the non-custodial parent-child relationship is thus affected both by the frequency and length of contact after divorce, with frequent and lengthy contact, (as opposed to "visiting" being much more likely to ensure continuity of contact in the case of fathers actively involved in their children's lives before divorce.

Perceived effects of divorce on children. A primary factor associated with the disengagement of previously highly involved and attached fathers was their perception that their children were being "caught in the middle" of an adversarial legal process and ongoing conflict between their parents. These fathers were reluctant to continue to expose their children to conflict, or to utilize what they considered to be "violent" means to "win" their children's custody, a process they believed to be potentially highly damaging to their children. Fathers' prevailing concern for their children's well-being thus functioned as a "Catch-22" against them: if a father was concerned about exposing his children to what he considered to be a "violent" process, or if he wished to not disrupt his children's lives further by challenging custody and upsetting their "status quo", his ongoing contact with his children after divorce may well have been in jeopardy.

Disengaged fathers were more attuned to the potentially negative impact of the divorce on their children, a reflection of their previous attachment to their children. They believed that their children recognized their fathers' importance in their lives and would be severely affected by the rupture in the relationship. These fathers felt that their children's health and development was very much in jeopardy as a result of father absence after divorce:

   "Given the close relationship that we had, I knew it would affect her negatively. I knew it would affect her, but in what way I didn't know. And I suppose I didn't give it the concern it should have received, in retrospect, because I thought it would only be a temporary situation. I suppose that this is how I've rationalized it". (Canadian "disengaged" father)

    "I don't feel that they've got a stable life, where they've got someone to fall back on to talk to. I know they've got their mother, but she's with them day after day, and it's not a shared responsibility. She just can't spend the time they need with them, whereas with two parents, you give each other a break, or you bring a different attitude toward them. They've only got one view of life, basically, and they don't have two people to give them a variation." (British "disengaged" father)

    "I think they have lost a sense of security, and there is a total lack of any fatherly role, which I think is very detrimental to them. They've lost the love of and for their father". (Canadian disengaged" father)

    "He's very upset, sad, wondering why I've left, why his life has been turned upside-down. I'm very concerned about the long-term psychological effects--having a chip on his shoulder, wondering why his father left him." (British "disengaged" father)

Paradoxically, disengaged fathers stressed the importance of continued paternal contact as critical to their children's well-being after divorce:

   "It is important to maintain the relationship in spite of the difficulties. It depends on the situation before separation. If the father had very little contact before separation, it's not so important to maintain links. But if he's closely involved in bringing up the child, he has to keep up the relationship. When it comes down to it, a person's security is rooted in his parents. This is very fundamental - security. A child should know where he came from, what his roots are". (British "disengaged" father)

    "The effects on the father are double-edged. A little bit of contact for someone who wishes to be a full-time father is a crumb from the rich man's table, and I would feel that the little bit of contact would add greatly to the father's distress when he goes away, or when the child goes away. But that father is an adult and I think that disadvantage emotionally of the recurrent sore of leaving his own child has to be taken for the sake of that child". (British "disengaged" father)

[Neal]

Interesting perspectives... .why do men give up and what do you think can be done to avoid this? Thoughts?

The article seems to really get at the heart of the subject matter.

IMO, involved fathers often structure their whole lives around the best interests of the children. Career decisions, housing, friends, and a host of other decisions are made with the primary welfare and well being of the children as a major factor. I think too that in cases where the mother was a stay at home mom or even with a small part time job, the husband/involved father is often looked upon to sacrifice his own desires and sometimes needs for the greater good of not only the children but the mother as well. When involved fathers and husbands of stay at home moms are engaged in the custody process in court, it is natural to continue to want to protect the mother and children to some degree. As the article describes accurately the father's lack of desire to further expose the children to conflict. The same is sometimes true regarding the father's reluctance to "attacking" the mother in a custody dispute.

From my own point of view, it would have been very difficult for me to essentially "attack" the mother of my own children in court; even when the "attack" was complete truth. It just does not make sense to a loving father to besmirch the abilities and character of the mother of the children he wishes to protect.

The system is very flawed. The predilection of the attorneys is flawed. The para-court system (DV centers, child support enforcement, law enforcement, et al) is flawed as well. Although I see change in some areas (perhaps urban more than rural in the USA), my hope for any lasting and deep change towards fairness for fathers and children is not likely within my lifetime. In other words, I don't think any substantial change in a positive direction is soon forthcoming.

My solution is radical and not likely to be socially accepted in our lifetimes. The solution, in my opinion, also addresses issues regarding 'gay marriage'. What I support, which goes against the grain of long tradition and roots of law in the western world, is to remove the judiciary from marriage. Those wishing to wed (heterosexual or homosexual) can solemnize in absentia of legal ties. Further, they may OPT to draw up a civil contract at anytime for the disposition of assets. If the union dissolves sans civil contract, then property is divided 50/50 as could be accomplished in any business dissolution -- with the required use of accountants, etc. If there is a civil contract then the property is divided as stated in the contract. As to the children, a binding custody agreement could be agreed upon before birth of the first child or even before possible conception. The combination of these two contracts would have the full force of contract law. We already have prenuptial agreements so why not have preconception agreements? In such a model, only the most blatant of contract violation should ever see the inside of a courtroom or come before a judge. If the union should dissolve sans prior custody agreement, then it is automatically 50/50 physical and legal with neither parent having preferential treatment... .basically parallel parenting in the extreme. This 50/50 should NOT even be a matter before a court as it should be an absolute default status. It is my belief that eventually either both parties will settle into a pattern that is at least workable for both parents and the children or one parent will disengage.

Will this ever happen? I don't think it will ever in the USA.

Some may pose the completely valid argument that pandemonium is likely to ensue in high conflict cases under my model. I agree, however, what is likely to happen now is not in the best interests of the child anyway. The most manipulative of the two parents often, IMO, gains majority or sole custody anyway. Couple that with what I perceive as a blatant gender bias in many places and you have injustice and harm to the children as well as at least one parent as the system functions now.


{Before anyone runs out and lobbies for my model, it must be disclosed that I am politically and economically an individualist anarchist and as such abhor what I perceive as the pervasive "nanny State".}

[oneflewover]

Fascinating read... .

"I don't really think I have parenting abilities now because I don't live with them. A parent should be a person that's there all the time. Now it's just like seeing someone that you care about, but only during certain periods, certain times--it's not really being a parent. To be a parent you've got to actually be there as they're growing up, and I haven't done that in the last few years. At best I'm just a friend." (British "disengaged" father) 

The above statement probably rings the most true!  When I talk with male clients who are absent from their child's lives this is the most used excuse.  They seem to have this, "if they are not under my roof and my care then it's not my responsibility" mentality.  I don't really know where that comes from or why but it is very much a common feeling among these absentee men.

[Neal]

"I don't really think I have parenting abilities now because I don't live with them. A parent should be a person that's there all the time. Now it's just like seeing someone that you care about, but only during certain periods, certain times--it's not really being a parent. To be a parent you've got to actually be there as they're growing up, and I haven't done that in the last few years. At best I'm just a friend." (British "disengaged" father) 

Putting this through my 'man translator' this is how I read that section (and others). Of course, this is not intended to speak for the British "disengaged" father, rather to give another male perspective on his excuse rationale.

There seem to be too many other influences in their lives for me to effectively parent as I believe a father should. A male's parenting style can often be through role modeling and without being present day to day, a father might feel ineffective in their strongest parenting style. The children begin to seem like strangers -- without being present day to day, I don't really know how to parent them as a male figure. Because I'm not present to parent as a role model in their daily lives, I don't feel like I am or can be a proper parent to them. My influence as a father is diminished to the point that my impact is the same or more likely less than that of their friends.

[Rich]

Wow,

Lot of feelings reported here I feel in myself.   I have joint custody and have battled my ex-wife momster for access.  It has not been easy.  I have stood outside courtrooms waiting for a hearing with so much anxiety that sweat pours down my face onto my starched collars.  the momster is freakin scary!

But I can't imagine my life without my daughter in it.  It would be like trying to live without air.  I would be consumed by guilt.  So I press on and parallel parent with the momster. I read books on parenting daughters, especially the importance of a Dad to a daughter.  Just last night, my hormonal D14 was angry at me for something she assumed I did and was extremely disrespectful on the phone.  I tried to set a parenting limit and fussed at her for dissing me, but not for having feelings.  Well, being 50 miles away, it was easy to dismiss me and run to her mother to gain an ally.  so momster left me a nasty voicemail on my inadequacies as a parent.  (nothing new)  I wonderered whether I was going to actually have my custody weekend untill a short time ago when D14 called me and asked when i was coming to get her. 

there have been sacrifices that go with this.   Most single women in their 40s who are dating are looking for a husband.  when they find out I have a daughter and am looking for a casual relationship, they leave.  Not interested in being number two girl in my life.  I understand.  I did meet one women who may have been interested in a casual relationship, but she reminded me of my ex!  Run Away!  Run Away!  (Monty Python)

Bottom line, this is what doing the "most right thing" is for me.  Daughters are a gift from God and the should come first. 

Thanks for sharing. Be well.

rich

Rich

[Shane Preston]

The hard part for me is trying to let go of the struggle, without letting go of D2.

By letting go of it I mean trying to compartmentalise it. I know it will always be there, but I can disengage from it, and return to it when I must. (I'm not at this point yet, but it's where I want to be)

I would never give up my daughter, for any reason, least of all to leave her to the tender mercies of Crazyhorse, just beacause I am not strong enough to weather the storm.

I can appreciate that in most of the examples in the articles the guys have probably had even more difficulties with acces than I am experiencing and I cannot sit in judgement over anyone's decision. There is no doubt that, particularly in the cases where men were very active in parenting before the split, this must bring almost unbearable pain.

I cannot help feeling that the path of least resistance is not the way to go. The trade off for not having to struggle under insurmountable odds to be a father is a torment, guilt and anguish that will live with you till your dying day.

Rich, any woman who cannot see how we are acting to protect our children, in terms of new relationships... .not worth a second thought.

Shane

[oneflewover]

It seems baffling to me how anyone can give up or walk away.  But people just do, both genders.     

My ex gave up because of guilt and shame on his part.  It seemed to me that he could not handle who he became and it was easier for him to just go away.  He of course used me as an excuse, "she makes it difficult"... .but he never even took me to court and volunteerily gave me sole custody.  His justifications are totally false and I realize he needs me as the escape goat.  But the facts are the opposite and the truth is obvious.

[95685dad]

Very intriguing question.  In my opinion a combination of factors are what I believe to be the reason that fathers give up.  I hope not to offend anyone, but I truly believe that a man's parenting of his child is not held in an as much high regard as a woman''s.  I think that most of the time it is automatically assumed that the mother should have custody to begin with.  If the divorce is civil and both parents put aside differences for the sake of the children, then in my opinion, the fathers will stay involved in their childrens lives much more easily.  The divorces where there are various degrees of conflict, I believe the father is less likely to stay involved.  Most of the time, not all, the father is usually the one to leave the home at the separation. Leaving the home usually forces the father to find a place to live and if he wants to see his children, he has to find a place that is suitable for them as well.

Access can be limited and that can be a very good deterrent in keeping the father away.  In my own experience, I think the various attempts to limit access to my children was intended to have me throw my hands up and walk away.  One of my characteristics of being stubborn helped me combat this.  I endured 15 years of turmoil from my 1st ex, but I still followed my child across the country to stay in her life.  When my first ex, informed me through her attorney that she was moving farther away, her attorney said that I am lucky because she could haved moved to New York instead of California.  My response it didn't matter where she went, I would follow.  :)espite what has happened with my 16 yr old, I will never give up on her.  I will hold on to the hope that someday my daughter will realize I have never stopped loving her, even if it takes the rest of my life.

I also believe finances have an impact on fathers staying involved.  If the father has to find another home suitable for him and his child(ren) and still pay support/alimony, it can be hard to make ends meet as far as making sure he has a place for his children to live with him when he has them.  Combine that with substantial legal fees due to a high conflict divorce and it can become difficult for the father to stay involved.  Myself, I believe that is one of the reasons I reconciled... .I reconciled because I wanted to make sure I made every attempt to save the marriage but I also knew I was looking at the upcoming storm I was about to face head-on.  

Constant turmoil can be a factor.  I am not saying that only women cause the turmoil, but if the above factors are in play and then the ex-wife makes accusations, there can come a point where a father has had enough.  A father may think that further attempts to see their children, may cause more harm than good as far as their children and decide to back away.  My 1st father-in-law said that he made that choice when my ex was 16 because his ex-wife only turned up the heat on their daughter, the more he wanted to see her.  He said that he regrets to this day doing that, but at the time, he didn't see any hope of deflecting the attacks from his ex-wife.

It is difficult for a father to feel like they are impacting their childrens lives if they are delegated every other weekend visitation.  However, I also don't support the statement that because of that, they lack the ability to parent their children.  I also think it is an excuse.  A father can try to make the most of the time but it is difficult.  It can also be very trying for the father to see the child every other week if there is such a gap between visits.  Just as some normalcy can begin after a few days, the child then goes back to the mother.  

Sometimes, excuses can also be given because the father had no interest in being a father.

Again, my opinion is based upon my own experiences.

[Exonerated]

Hello All,

Even though my S17.9 lives with me, when he went to stay with his mother for a visit, he arranged a cookout at his mother's house and invited me.

OK here are the problems for me, attending would be my BPDw, my S17.9, and my BPDw's parents now both in their 80's.

For those of you who remember my story, my BPDw has called the police on me 20-25 times, and finally received a "cease and desist" from the police saying she would be prosecuted if she called the police one more time, without there actually being a problem. She would make up some totally horse ___ story... .tell it to the police, like he just beat me senseless, but have no bruises, no physical signs of abuse.

Then she took to "falling down the stairs" to create bruises, but I would make sure I would be gone for several days every time she did this. Then she also punched herself in the face repeatedly to make bruises, so I would go away for a few days then too.

So here is my problem. I can't seem to convince my son that I do not wish to be included in any group that also includes his mother. Children always seem to think we can just get everyone together and it will be like old times. There have been a lot of things happen that make such "old times" a really nerve racking experience for me. My S23 got married last year. He invited me to the wedding and much to my dismay, the assigned seating for family, had me sitting next to BPDw. I have to tell you that was like sitting next to the person who has accepted a contract to kill you.

So what I'm suggesting is that being a parent with any kind of shared responsibility just guarantees these painful and nerve racking exposures to the person who tried to harm you. My BPDw said to me many times her fondest dream would be to create some situation where the police would come, arrest and cuff me, then drive away with me in the back seat of the police car.

I asked, "why would they arrest me?"  I was thinking of course, I am not doing anything illegal. Her answer, "it really doesn't matter, I can just make up something to charge you with, there is nothing I can do to you that is bad enough to repay you for what you have done to me, so whatever I have to do to get you arrested is justified."

So you see when I am exposed to her, I feel very vulnerable. She has threatened to kill me in my sleep, so when my son insists that I spend the night at her house, I see that as giving her the opportunity to do what she has threatened.

I feel a lot safer, when my son and I are 1000 miles away from her. If I had to live in the same area, and shuttle my son back and forth, I don't think I could deal with that.

Cheers,

On_Parole

[oneflewover]

I don't remember where these stats came from to credit, but I think it is safe to say that there is no doubt a problem... .

What is more alarming is that the problem is even worse according to the latest research statistics. According to 72.2 % of the U.S. population, Absentee Fathers is the most significant family or social problem facing America.

What does this mean?

1. An estimated 24.7 million children (36.3%) live absent from their biological father.

2. There are almost 17 million children (25%) living with their single mothers.

3. 1.25 million or 32% of all births in 1995 were out-of-wedlock.

4. Today nearly 4 out of 10 first marriages end in divorce, 60% of divorcing couples have children, and over one million children each year experience the divorce of their parents.

5. One out of every six children is a stepchild.

6. There are nearly 1.9 million single fathers with children under 18.

7. 4 out of every 10 cohabitating couples have children present, and of children born to cohabitating couples, only 4 out of 10 will see their parents marry. Those who do cohabitate experience a 50% higher divorce rate.

8. 26% of absentee fathers live in a different state than their children.

9. About 40% of the children who live in absentee father households haven't seen their fathers in at least a year while 50% of children who don't live with their fathers have never stepped foot in their father's home.

10. Children who live absent from their biological fathers, on average, are more likely to be poor, experience educational, health, emotional and psychological problems, be victims of child abuse, and engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological mother and father.

Currently, 57.7 percent of all black children, 31.8 percent of all Hispanic children, and 20.9 percent of all white children are living in single-parent homes.

Why do they give up?  I just can’t blame it on the legal system failing them or even the dreaded difficult ex who makes it impossible for them to see or be involved with their children.  

I think it is something deeper, more psychological and social in nature and it ultimately lays at the accountibility and responsibility of the father and nothing and no one else.

[Neal]

I think it is something deeper, more psychological and social in nature

With that, I would agree as well.

and it ultimately lays at the accountibility and responsibility of the father and nothing and no one else.

With that, I would disagree. Perhaps most often, but not ultimately.


Good post OFO.

[Scott828]

Interesting article Skip, much appreciated, and a lot of good thoughts and opinions seem to have sprung from it.

I sit here now, my S4 is not with me, like he hasn't been for last four weekends. Since Momster decided to take it upon herself to restrict me to three hours contact per week, which basically boils down to jealousy and envy of the relationship I have with my son, and of course the usual "control" issues. This was all done through her lawyer, she even lied in the lawyers letter, saying that "my S4 is having difficulties with the extent of my contact", I have over fifty witnesses to prove this wrong and the most important, my S4, thats allowing for the fact she doesn't try to poison her mind meantime, as I would not put anything past her.

This time last year, I gave up nine hours of contact time per week, as she said she was trying to get S4 into routine for pre-school (needless to say even as far on as last December, he was going to bed 12-1am.) and she wanted to have at least one Saturday after noon per every fortnight, to spend with son. For this she would "trade" I could take S4 on holiday for a week or so, but to give her notice.

Needless to say, I didn't not get holiday time. Due to her erratic moods and unpredictability.

So now, after a relentless BPD hate-filled campaign for last few months I find myself with three hours, as opposed to forty-two hours a year ago. I feel as she cannot "control" me, she is trying to slowly but surely trying erode all the time I have with my son, and leave me no contact.

Not forgetting she also stated in lawyers letter, that I must take a DNA test, to prove whether I am father or not. Then she (Momster) will consider the matter further. I have been S4 father since birth! I am on birth cert! Who is she trying to get to, here, she may think it is me, but I know her better, the sad fact is the only one that is really suffering as a result is my S4, who is supposed to be her number one priority! Its almost absurd, if it wasn't so serious.

To further complicate matters, I have found out I am not bio-dad, but she doesn't know yet.

So I have had to employee lawyer to fight this all the way, as I can no longer put up being dictated to by Momster, as I sadly watch my son, suffer on the sidelines. At every opportunity, I have tried to remain amicable in the face of adversity, always tried to do what I thought best for my son and be the best father I can. I do not want to go to court, but I have been left with little choice, due to access issues, BPD, behaviour, lies and accusations, and most important, watch helpless as my S4 decline under her influence.

So strongly worded legal letter, in return for hers, two weeks later,  I still await a response, meantime all this lost time is bleeding into my ex-BPD plan. I miss my son, so much. The three hours I do get are the best time of the week, and then the worst, when he has to go home, all in a three hour emotional roller coaster. Trying to explain in the best of terms to a 4yo, what is going on, all the time trying to remain objective, as is possible.

So the immovable object meets the irresistible force! I can never give up on my son, I have bonded with them, he has made me the person I am today, a proud father, and I am proud to say it. Every time i think about my son, my heart swells with pride. The way he laughs when he's being tickled, the way he makes friends without trying, way he seems to strike a pose when a camera is around, there is so much more, but won't take up too much of your time.

So I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees, as far as current situation goes with ex-BPD, i have to make a stand for my son's future well being, and my sanity. Time to roll out the bulldozer! I hope to God, It falls in my favour, and someone feels or sees what it's been like to walk in my shoes over last four years. If it fails due to crazy system, then at least I will know I tried, and I won't even consider how I would deal with it, at the moment.

I am seriously considering writing a book about the last four years, in the hope it may help fathers in a similar predictment.

[fantasyman]

Gotta agree w Neal's comments above. 

My wife & I have been split/divorced for nearly 8 years.  We have a D8 and a D10.  After the divorce, she moved them nearly 200 miles away.  I get my kids every other weekend and any other time my work & their school schedules permit (I've even talked to their classes).  At first, my ex promised to share the burden of closing the distance by meeting me at a half-way point.  A year ago, that cooperation stopped - even though I've never grunted about or even been late w child support.  So now, I drive nearly 400 miles round-trip to get my girls.  I'm fortunate that my parents live near my ex, so some weekends I just keep the girls at my parents place - kill two birds w one stone.

All this to say that any man can father a child.  However, if that man truly wants to be a "daddy", he will do whatever it takes to remain a part of his childrens lives.  Children need both parents, whether the circumstances are good & easy or not so good.  I don't mean to offend anyone, but anything less seems cowardly to me.  Our children didn't ask to be born - WE are the one's who chose to do what it took to get them here, and WE are the one's w the responsibility to help them become responsible, contributing adults.

One of my closest friends of 35 years lives across the country from me.  He's also divorced, and his ex & kids live 1500 miles away.  He's now found himself in a position of homelessness b/c he lost his 2nd job and can't afford both rent AND child support, but refuses to not support his kids.  He'll have an apartment again by summer - b/c THAT'S when he'll have a chance to get his kids for a few weeks.

We do what we have to do - at least, those of us who truly love our children and refuse to abandon them just b/c we couldn't make things work w their mothers.

Kind of got on my soap box (sorry).  Good post - thanks for the opportunity chime in w my perspective.

[95685dad]

This is somewhat related to my statement about a mother's parenting is held in much higher regard than a fathers.  A tragic story in Tracy, CA where a little girl disappeared a little over a week ago.  Many men have been put under the microscope during the investigation.  Sadly, the little girl's body was found two miles from the home.  The child's female Sunday school teacher has just been arrested in connection with the little girl's death.  On the news this morning, people have been writing in that they would have never thought a woman could do this because women are considered to be the "nurturers".

Very sad

I also agree that if men are not intending to be the "daddy" to their kids for the rest of their lives, they probably shouldn't have had kids. 

[oneflewover]

My wife & I have been split/divorced for nearly 8 years.  We have a D8 and a D10.  After the divorce, she moved them nearly 200 miles away.  I get my kids every other weekend and any other time my work & their school schedules permit (I've even talked to their classes).  At first, my ex promised to share the burden of closing the distance by meeting me at a half-way point.  A year ago, that cooperation stopped - even though I've never grunted about or even been late w child support.  So now, I drive nearly 400 miles round-trip to get my girls.  I'm fortunate that my parents live near my ex, so some weekends I just keep the girls at my parents place - kill two birds w one stone.

That certainly is another factor... .when the Mother moves away with the kids.  Most states provide geographical restriction in their family codes and most counties are really making sure they are ordered.  I encourage any parent facing custody orders to fight like hell that there is geographical restriction language in place.  Distance strains and makes it very hard to maintain the bonds between that of parent and child.

[FreeatLast]

It seems baffling to me how anyone can give up or walk away.  But people just do, both genders.     

My ex gave up because of guilt and shame on his part.  It seemed to me that he could not handle who he became and it was easier for him to just go away.  He of course used me as an excuse, "she makes it difficult"... .but he never even took me to court and volunteerily gave me sole custody.  His justifications are totally false and I realize he needs me as the escape goat.  But the facts are the opposite and the truth is obvious.

Ditto to that, Oneflewover,

My ex decided to move a four hour dive away from his daughter to hook up with his new victim... .err... .girlfriend... .

He sees his daughter very rarely now AND only for a few hours at a time... .when it's convenient for him.

And yes... .it's because it's all MY fault.

Geesh!

Free

[Skip]

90% 33% 28% 18% 16% 5%

Access difficulties    Father's decision to cease contact    Practical difficulties (distance,finances, work schedule)    Child(ren) not wanting contact    Legal injunction    Early pattern of no contact (prohibiting future contact)

One way of looking at this is that fathers should be careful not to fall into one of these traps and loose your children.  From reading the list, it's understandable how this can creep up on you.  Its a complex game and you need the skills and that mindset to prevail and that can be tough to muster in the shadows of a failed marriage and contentious divorce - but we must!

• The father that is a victim of PAS and does not affectively know how to mediate it (nobody is born with these skills - education is key), or

• The emotionally "beat down" father leaves the house, there is an extended dispute, and he stays away because it is painful (get to those temporary orders quickly and do not over compromise),  or

• The ill prepared father with poor parenting skills that is rejected by the children (the age of the children is critical - education and timing is key), or

• The successful father that has career advancement (needs to be a thought out before you file - timing), or

• The hot tempered father than ends up with an RO, or is too focused on the battle with the SO and forgets the bambinis (stay focused on the war, not the battles - easier to say than do, but ever so important).

In the end it is so sad.  The kids need their Dad.  The momentum is often against the father - it takes strength and skill to stay in the game and in your children's life - you must be negotiator, warrior, diplomat, student, clever fox - strong and clear headed.  Hopefully we all can play a role in educating, supporting, and motivating each other (and our moms) in this.

Skippy

[arjay]

I have a wonderful relationship with my 10 year old daughter.  We have our own interests which we share together, things her mother does not.  They are things that have built a bond between us and things that I "stepped up" and took an interest in it too.  One is cooking and we do watch shows, learn new recipes and share together.  I learned to be a pretty good cook too.  

The second thing was becoming a volunteer for a foundation that rescues abused and neglected horses.  My daughter who loves horses, has become initimately involved, as I have too.  We share Saturdays working with horses, cleaning stalls, grooming and giving them love and kindness.  Ironically I have not only bonded with my daughter, but spending time caring for these wonderful animals has helped in my personal healing too from a BPD marriage.

I realized from the struggle of my BPD ex-wife and her childhood sexual abuse, that it was essential to keep a healthy relationship with my daughter.  My ex was abused because adults were often absent, instead of realizing kids need parents.

I refused to let my daughter "fall through the cracks".  I refused to have her grow up without a "father" in her life.  She didn't ask for the divorce, therefore I owed it to her to be the best father I could be, regardless of the obstacles involved.  What we share is our's alone and it is priceless.  I am so glad I didn't "give up".

Peace

[Auspicious]

My love for the kids gave me great strength, when my wife ran off last year.

I knew that however our drama turned out, there was no way I could just go along with what she planned for them (she wanted to "split them up" between us, for pete's sake).

And yes, I was scared to death at how the deck is stacked against men, even though I could hardly have asked for a more favorable scenario for me (she left, she repeatedly was in the mental hospital).

[Samuell]

I guarantee that if father's rights (or more accurately, children's rights re: their father) were supported in law as are mother's then these statistics would alter.

It's not enough to say that fathers need to fight. In many, many cases they are just at the mercy of whatever the mother will allow. Courts continue to ignore the role of the father (except for maybe child support and weekend visits to McDonalds). If you come up against false abuse allegations, threats etc and you can't afford to progress it then you would soon give up. I did try hard and have maintained joint custody of my kids but it is as much good luck as good management that I actually have that.

[Exonerated]

Hello All,

January 2010 will be 40 years since I married BPDw. In 1984 she told our two children then (the other two were born later) that I had another wife and another family in another city, and whenever I traveled for business that was just my way of saying I was going to stay with my other family. BPDw denied ever telling the girls this story, but both girls maintained it was what she told them until today. 

My two daughters didn't believe this story, and asked me. This opened a long dialogue of honest frank conversations with my two daughters, culminating with a long series of daddy/daughter dates, where they would dress up and on alternate weekends we would go to a restaurant or a movie, or whatever the daughter wanted to do within reason.

The main reason is that I discovered I couldn't talk with my daughters without BPDw loudly butting into the conversation, calling me names, liar, or whatever just to break up the conversation. So the daddy/daughter dates were for conversation time, and often we talked of problems with BPDw.

When the two sons were born the two daughters were old enough so they assumed most of the care responsibilities for the two boys. BPDw filed for divorce in 1994.

At that time I was told BPDw would get custody of the 4 children. I couldn't see my kids growing up with BPDw, yet the court was adamant the children would be better off with their mother... .  

So I go back to BPDw throw myself at her mercy, beg for forgiveness and she filed again in the summer of 2005. By then our youngest son was the only child still living at home. I packed him up and moved him in with his older sister and my son in law in another state, and enrolled him in the public school there.

Custody wasn't an issue in Michigan since son lived with his sister in another state. After the Michigan settlement was final, son moved in with me. My lawyer petitioned the court to give me full physical custody, with 50/50 joint parental custody.

Now I'm in the process of divorce in Texas. I have no children to worry about the custody of, since my youngest is over 18 and graduated from high school. This is how I stayed involved in my children's lives. It paid off, since I have a good relationship with all four children and my BPDw has a very spotty relationships with the same four. I am welcome to come any time I wish, stay as long as I wish, while she must schedule visits in advance and limit stay to 2 or 3 days.

Would I do anything different if faced with the same problem again?

I don't think any human should be required to put up with what I have put up with, but for my children it was worth the cost.

Cheers,

On_Parole

[david]

It's been two years since uBPDw ran away with the kids. She constantly sends mixed signals. I get to see the kids more than the court order but it is all up to her whims. Total chaos and no order in the kids lives. I see them most of the summer because of the court order and that still winds up in court. Last summer it took about two weeks before they were "normal". This summer my S6 is a mess. S10 is strong enough to be on his own (not an ideal situation) and by everything he tells me he sleeps in her apartment and eats dinner. He has no real relationship with her and his biggest complaint is she doesn't listen to him.  S6 has tantrums for no apparent reason and he took the majority of my time this summer. This made S10 act out like never before because he was jealous. How do you stand there and watch your kids go down the tubes because the courts give moms preferential treatment. I have stepsons and two have moved back home since uBPDw left. My relationship with stepsons is great. They have been NC or LC with her for the last two years. I can't protect my own dna kids. I am still fighting but there are times when you just feel like walking away especially when you see them declining emotionally. I am currently going back to court to seek primary custody and a custody eval which has never been done.

[fantasyman]

Skippy,

Thanks for this thread.  It's pretty obvious that fathers maintaining relationships w our children is absolutey crucial to their development into adults - even when doing so w the mom's isn't possible.  Ireally appreciate the opportunity to share my story, and hear those of others. 

My G's are abolutely crazy about their time w their father.   I get them every other weekend, and any other opportunity when scholl/work permits.  Their mom (who isn't BPD) is actually pretty cooperative w these opportunities.  My live-in BPDGF on the other hand, while she usually applauds my efforts to stay conected w my g's, she often makes negative comments toward her own S's father (S16 & S12) that encourage them to distance themselves from their father (who lives just across town).  Sure, he has his problems (acute ADD, new wife's bipolar, no job, etc.), but he's still their father.  He may be a little neglectful, but he's not abusive to them, & they really love & need whatever he has to offer them. 

A number of times, one of the  other of the b's has called me "dad".  While I appreciate that they recognize that I'm there for them, I always make sure that they don't forget who their father really is.  If they want to consider me a "dad" to them as well, that's cool w me.

I can certinly relate to the need for "date nights" w the kids.  GF's constantly interrupting my conversation w the kids. & she can't stand any attempts to bond w her b's unless she's involved.  She's even asked me not to talk to her b's about anything related to manhood, b/c she doesn't agree w my perspectives.  I just tell her "You haven't taken a single breath of your life as a man - I've been one for nearly 30 adult years, & I can relate to what your b's are going thru.  Still, if you want to rob them input from both me & their father, you & they will pat the rice in the end".

[jas3871]

I don't want to give up on my kids.  I would come home from work cook dinner and then be responsible for taking care of the kids because she had them all day and wanted to relax.  I know what it is like to care for my children as a sole parent as at times it felt like I was the only one.  I hope that I do win custody of my kids cause they mean the world to me and I will fight for them to have as close to a normal life as possible for their sake.

[myfreedom]

This is an excellent post.  I am currently in the process of divorcing my BPDh.  He was a good Daddy when we were together but now he has decided that since I made the decision to divorce he is not going to participate in his daughter's lives.  He says that I can't have it both ways.  I can understand the pain but I can't think of any reasons why you would shut out your children.  It hurts but I can't control him and I must move forward for my children.

[justhere]

Hi Skip

I was in tears when I read this thread as this is so hard to me to even look at and I do need to find some acceptance and peace. I feel for all you fathers who are put in this position when the marriage ends as I have been there too. 

My relationship with my children's father didn't end very well and none of us was in a good way.  I had one daughter 16, pregnant, the other daughter 14, on drugs and my son 10, inconsolable. I know every break-up is different and most of time the children end up with the mother but I had to make the hardest and most painful decision in my life and that was to send my son to live with his father.

Giving-up was the farthest thing from my mind as by doing this I was doing what I thought was best for my son so that he would have the best chance. It was hard not to hear him coming home after school or to know who his friends were or to make his lunch and wave good-bye as he went off to school.  I did see my son sometimes on weekends and my ex was good with letting me see him on holidays but I still felt like a visitor in my son's life and now some other woman who I wouldn't even recognize on the street was taking my place.

My heart was broken again and again as I still yearn for these times that I missed. I knew though in spite of everything that my son was growing into a fine young man and now when I look at him I know it was worth everything to give him a healthier life.  I don't expect anyone to agree with me or even understand but it doesn't matter as I know I did the only thing I could do and although this is my one regret in my life, I would do it again in an instant.

justhere

[MyBigMouth]

I've often thought that there is a severe breakdown in family in this day and age. I right now can only speak for myself. Being a single mother with a restraining order against my ex, I do wish he would at least take responsibility for bringing three souls into this world and pay child support.  Im sure his mentality is f her Im not giving her any of my money.  In that statement I don't hear anything about his kids.  I honestly don't even want contact with his side of the family.  They have never sent even a b-day card for their grandchildren.  Im glad on one side that I don't have to try to explain who this person is and why they are not allowed to see them, etc.  Still I think they should be respectful, and think of the kids and I honestly think no one does.  They think about themselves.  I would rather let the house go to hell, than take out my frustrations on them.  It's better that mom gives 100% to them not the house.  I think the same applies to the fathers even when there is a rift between the BPD mom and the dad.  It should still just only boil down to the kids, and I think it's truly amazing what we are capable of when pushed to our limits.  Read my profile and you will see I am truly pushed to my limits. Im not g-dly in any way, I've learned I am so much stronger than I ever would have allowed myself to be if I wasn't forced to be for their mental and physical well being.

Men you should be doing everything possible for those kids.

[elishwind]

I am new on this site and see that there is a wealth of information available for me to begin dealing with my 'problems'. A little history:

My significant other was diagnosed BPD years ago before I met her. After a year or so of a on again off again relationship she became pregnant. She was killilng the fetus with booze and cigarettes, so in his best interest I allowed her to move back in to protect/control her drinking. For the 6 months or so before the baby arrived we had little if any confict. Within two weeks of his arrival, she began a distrotion campaign with her friends, pediatician, family, and social workers from the hospital. One evening, her friend came over and she pounded down two bottles of wine. I fed the baby and went to bed. I woke to her coming into bed with me and the baby crying. I got up to change/feed the baby only to find him not swaddled, blankets all around him but nothing covering him, he was drenched and had dryed formula on his neck and face. Calmly and gently I said, "we have to try to keep him warm at night so he sleeps better". This was taken as a direct attack on her ability to raise our baby. Her violent, irrational, and hysterical reaction (screaming and throwing things at me while I changed the baby)  resulted in her conversation with her Mother (BPD also)- who called the police from 400 miles away. I was taken to jail Breach of Peace. I havn't seen my son in 67 days as of today. I am devistated.

[survivorof2]

I want to tell you about a father that did not give up.

When his children were babies, his wife and kids were kidnapped by his uBPDinlaws (he tried to file kidnapping charges). When he did locate them, he moved to where they were living and sought to get visitation. He did get supervised visitation (due to lies of the uBPDinlaws and his now enmeshed "stockholm syndrome" wife). He only saw his kids about 3 times a year and sometimes as little as every 2 years). When he finally filed for a visitation change (when he hadn't seen his kids for 2 years), things started happening and his wife got away from her uBPDparents with the help of the police.

He was able to keep his sanity by going on with his life in many ways: he built a race car, he bought a home (in spite of paying child support), he had a support system, he dated, he refused to get enmeshed with the uBPD family dynamics. He knew he could probably see the kids more if he "played their game", but he refused to be sucked in.

Want to know what his son said to him when he could finally have unlimited access to his dad? "why didn't you visit me more?"

I tell you this story to encourage you to NOT give up on your kids. They DO want you in their lives. It is never too late to mend a relationship.

By the way, I am that wife that was kidnapped.

[Steph]

 My H went thru this in his divorce, and also a scathing, horrendous attack of parental alienation. She told the kids horrible lies, terrifying them and supporting them in their fear. She told the kids that he was 'dangerous', had 'issues' and ' it wasnt safe to see dad, but he is forcing you to... ' She called CPS for made up stuff, which of course was found to be made up. Even so, it continued.

He threw in the towel, also., tho of course, continues to pay support. The cost of fighting this fight was horrendous and as the article mentioned, I dont think lawyers helped, either... only making things more acrimonious...

He currently has a healthy and well relationship with his oldest, who is now in his 20s. He hasnt seen his other 2 kids in years.

As both parents had BPD, this got super ugly. He went into DBT and has recovered very well and she is now teaching DBT... .   

Only time will tell with the other 2 kids and how that will turn out.

Its been ... and remains... a nightmare.