FLINT logo
Families Link International
Tel:0781 886 1724

home | issues | policies | family groups | courts | court reporters | research | law | contacts | donations | Useful Quotes |

Issues - Gender Bias - "Court-ordered sexism"


"Court-ordered sexism"

By Robyn E. Blumner, St Petersberg Times (Florida), Times Perspective
Columnist email blumner@sptimes.com 16 May 2004

Except for the battlefield, family court has to be the last bastion of
legally enforced sexism in our society. State statutes that determine child
custody arrangements and child support may be written in gender-neutral
language, but they are not applied that way. Traditional concepts of the
family - where the father is breadwinner and the mother controls the
domestic sphere - permeate the process, often disadvantaging men who want
an equal opportunity to rear their children.

David Blankenhorn, who wrote Fatherless America, says absent fathers are
"the most destructive trend of our generation." But our institutions are
adding to this crisis by overwhelmingly preferring the mother as the
primary parent. Mothers make up five of every six custodial parents, with
the system essentially telling fathers that their worth is that of

Why is a father who gets up and goes to work every day in order to provide
his children with a decent standard of living seen by the courts as less
nurturing than the parent who stays home, enjoying the fruits of that labor?

I see both acts as at least equally caretaking. Yet due to a series of
unwritten and unspoken gender-related assumptions, family judges tend to
give mothers both decisional control over the children and financial
support after a family breakup. This gives women an incentive to dissolve
their relationships, as demonstrated by the fact that women initiate
divorce in about 70 percent of cases.

I can imagine what dads must feel in receiving "visitation" with their
children. The very notion that fathers are just "visiting" is deeply
disturbing, suggesting that a father's company is like a trip to grandma's.

In a 1998 Florida State Law Review article on gender bias in family court,
editor in chief Cynthia McNeely wrote: "If the treatment fathers receive in
family court occurred in the workplace, an affirmative action plan would
likely be implemented to rectify the pervasive discrimination and barriers
fathers encounter as they seek meaningful access to their children."

Interestingly, this is one form of sex discrimination that is not only
accepted but jealously guarded by feminist groups such as the National
Organization for Women. In a memorandum written by NOW's government
relations director in 2000, the organization denounced "men's custody
groups" such as the nonprofit Children's Rights Council, because they aid
"noncustodial dads in reducing their child support obligations and (in)
taking away custody from moms." (According to its Web site, the mission of
the Children's Rights Council is "to assure a child the frequent,
meaningful and continuing contact with two parents," a dangerous notion to
those feminist groups that want fathers to pay up and shut up.)

When men gain reasonable access to their children, women's groups cry foul.
Last month, the California Supreme Court ruled that a divorced mother who
had been awarded primary physical custody of two young sons could not move
them to Ohio with her and her new husband.

In an eminently fair and reasonable decision, the high court upheld a lower
court determination that moving the children so far from their father would
preclude them from having an ongoing relationship with him. The Contra
Costa County Superior Court had said the mother could move but she would
have to relinquish custody to the father.

The California Women's Law Center called the Supreme Court's ruling "a huge
step backwards" and said that a "legislative fix" is needed that would
return to custodial parents a presumptive right to move away and take the

Talk to Dan Montagna and the real costs of a policy like that become clear.
A Pinellas County charter fishing boat owner, Montagna has been battling
his ex-wife for years to prevent her from moving to California and taking
their 7-year-old daughter. He says he is deeply involved in his daughter's
life, accompanying her to school and gymnastics training. "She's
everything," he says of his little girl.

Montagna's lucky. Since 1997 the law in Florida has been changed to end the
courts' prior practice of favoring relocation for the custodial parents. So
far, with help from attorney Peter Meros, Montagna has been able to keep
his daughter here. But not every state has progressed to recognize that
children need their fathers as well as their mothers to be part of their
day-to-day lives.

Part of the problem is the legal standard used to resolve custody issues,
where judges apply a "best interest of the child" analysis and thereby
allow their inherent biases toward maternal nurturing to seep in. To ward
against that, I suggest the adoption of a new standard recognizing that the
children's interests are no more important than the constitutional rights
of both parents to actively rear them.

Fathers are becoming an endangered species in part because the family
courts don't fully appreciate their equal claim to their children. Sexist
notions of gender roles inform too much decisionmaking, transforming too
many men from engaged parent to alienated visitor.

The contents on these pages are provided as information only. No responsibility or liability is accepted by or on behalf of FLINT for any errors, omissions, or misleading statements on these pages, or any site to which these pages connect, whether provided by FLINT or by any organisation, company or individual. No mention of any organisation, company or individual, whether on these pages or on other sites to which these pages are linked, shall imply any approval or warranty as to the standing and capability of any such organisations, companies or individuals on the part of FLINT. All rights reserved.