Recent concern on fatherless families in
(especially) the U.S. has created what would otherwise be viewed as a
scapegoat: the Deadbeat Dad. The imagery, approaching the
mythological in character, of the Deadbeat Dad has cast such
individuals as the villainous cause of the plight of the American
family. By what is close to a definition, the Deadbeat Dad is viewed
as a man who has fathered a child, deserted the mother and her & his
children, and then refused to share the economic responsibilities of
nurturing his child to independence. Thereby, were Deadbeat Dads to
shoulder their financial responsibilities toward their children, then
family problems would vanish or at least be ameliorated. It is
suggested that such imagery camouflages a reality more difficult for
the populace to accept, much less to devise an appropriate public
policy which would cope with the reality. While Deadbeat Dads do
create financial burdens for the mother, mothers' choices, in the
main, create fatherless families.
Within the last few years, the rise in the number
of children in the U.S. who are being reared by a single parent has
gravitated from a descriptive demographic statistic to a matter of
some concern to governmental officials as well as to the professional
and popular presses/electronic media. The single parent is
overwhelmingly the mother. In 1995, 28% of minor children lived with
mother only, 4% with father only, and 5% with neither parent.
Sixty-three percent of the minor children lived with both parents
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1996). Framed differently, 75.7% of
children who were not living with their two parents were living with
mother only, 10.8% were living with father only, and 13.5% were living
with neither their mother nor their father. Note that more minor
children were living with neither parent than with the father only.
Hence, the bulk of the changes in family structure which have occurred
have involved the abrading of the father-figure from the mother-child
dyad.
The net costs of fatherlessness to the child have
been a source of some debate. For examples of emotional,
psychological and social deficits in children which are aligned with
fatherlessness, see Blankenhorn (1995), Hanson, McLanahan & Thomson
(1996), Hofferth et al. (1 994), Phares & Lum (1997), Popenoe (1996)
(of Adams, Milner, & Schrepf 1984). In what may be a barometer on how
the folklore of the society operates, the reaction to the abrading is
most interesting.
The focus upon ameliorating those problems which
would flow from fatherlessness has not been on the causes of the
abrading. The focus has tended to be on the economic (ir)responsibilities
of the "father" after the man has been precluded from or
peeled away from the role of social father. Furthermore, the wrath
of politicians and the literati and the academics has been directed at
the biological father's dereliction of his economic duties to the
child he has sired. A new bogeyman was invented in our urban
mythology: the Deadbeat Dad. Of interest is the fact that, if 100%
of the Deadbeat Dads fully carry out 100% of their financial
responsibilities, the problem of fatherlessness is not addressed at
all. Only the financial burdens of the mother are lessened. The
family is still sundered. The child is still fatherless.
Women's choices and fatherlessness.
It is argued here that "fatherlessness" is very
much a function of women's choices. In only a small proportion of
incidences do men/fathers have even a marginal opportunity to affect
the choices made by the women. If such an argument does have a dollop
of eternal verity, a most intriguing problem then presents itself: Can
the U.S., or any society, analyze the eventuality or even entertain
the possibility that women's priorities for their own independence
trump that of the welfare of their children?
The persona of the Deadbeat Dad.
A search in one of the current data bases --
Infotrac -- found that there were 38 sources which included the key
word "Deadbeat". Of those 38, 20 were aligned with "Dad", hence
Deadbeat Dad. A search for "Deadbeat mother" found four sources. All
four described how mothers deal with Deadbeat Dads. There were no
sources which used the phrase "Deadbeat Mom". Some of the more
lyrical titles of articles related to Deadbeat Dads included:
"Collecting from deadbeat dads" (Mansnerus 1996), "Deadbeat dads under
fire" (Cross 1996). "Triumphing over a deadbeat dad" (Anonymous
1995), "Clinton cracks down on deadbeat parents" (Laabs 1995),
"Dunning deadbeats" (Van Biema 1995). Van Biema's abstract is
informative: "The Clinton Administration has taken aim at deadbeat
dads, and Congress has given new child-support enforcement tools to
the states. The new form bounty hunters who seek out these
deadbeat dads are discussed". (emphases added). How the men came to
be separated from their children was very systematically avoided.
There are only two main routes
to the chronic separation of fathers from their children: single
parent births and divorce.1
Each of these two will be examined below.
Single parent births & the Deadbeat Dad.
There are three steps involved in this route for
a man to become a Deadbeat Dad.
First, the man is to become a biological father,
then
Second, he does not enter into the role of social
father, and then
Third, he fails to make court mandated payments
to the mother. A note on these payments is useful here. The
payments are entitled "child support"; however neither the father nor
the child nor the governing unit, which mandates the payments, has any
control or monitoring how the man's funds are actually spent. The
term "child support" could represent a triumph of optimism, hope and
naivete over rigorous accounting procedures.
The first step: Become a biological father.
Let's look at the first point: "Become a biological father". The Roe
v. Wade decision created a salient gender asymmetry. With abortion
legal, a pregnant woman could and can choose to become a parent or
not. The government cannot mandate that the woman must carry the "conceptus"
to term, nor can the government mandate that the woman must abort the
conceptus. The choice on the future of the pregnancy belongs to the
woman, and only to the woman. The government cannot coerce parenthood
upon the woman.
Once a conception has occurred, the man, as a
matter of contrast, has zero choice concerning his potential
parenthood, none whatsoever. If the woman decides to abort his child,
his child is aborted. The man has no legal recourse.
If the woman does decide to carry the child to
term and to give birth, the man cannot prevent her. He has no legal
recourse. If the woman decides for herself to become a parent, she
also decides that the man will become a parent. The government then
determines that the genitor is a "parent", whether he wishes to be or
not. The government can then dun him -- the genitor -- for "child
support" for at least eighteen years. The government can coerce
parenthood upon the man. What is an unacceptable act it directed
toward the woman -- coerced parenthood -- happens to men everyday.
The differential public response to female circumcision, invariably
viewed as inappropriate, versus male circumcision, invariably not
reported at all, represents an interesting analogue.
The second step: Avoid the role of social
father If the man offers marriage to the woman, she may accept or
reject his proposal. If she rejects him, the man has no legal
recourse. He cannot force marriage upon the woman. The government
cannot force marriage upon the woman. Once his child is born to the
single mother, the man has virtually no de facto rights toward his
child. The unmarried father does have de jure rights vis-a-vis his
child, and family law, in most states has articulated a gender-neutral
position in terms of custody (Weyrauch & Katz 1983; Westfall 1994).
However, in day-to-day realities, women dominate in receiving custody
of the child (again, more children live with neither parent than with
father-only). In effect, all of his "parenting" efforts must be
funneled through the single mother. His level of parenting can be
determined by the personal decisions of a particular woman. How the
women fulfills her role of "gatekeeper" more depends upon her
individual circumstances and her personality than upon legal edicts.
The government is simply not in a structural position to influence
effectively the level of parenting by unwed fathers.
The numbers here are not trivial. Approximately
1,529,000 abortions occur each year or 379 abortions per 1,000 live
births. In addition, 31.0% of all births, or 1,240,000 births (in
1993) were to single parent mothers (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1996).
Of these 2,769,000 conceptions (1,529,000 + 1,240,000 = 2,769,000),
the man has no legal recourse to influence any of them: zero.
Thus, women's choices are driving single parent
births, not men's. Women's choices are creating these fatherless
families. The Deadbeat Dads are lowering the resources available to
the mother, but are not leaving the role of social father. They were
never in the role of an on-going, social father,
nor do they have any legal mechanism to adopt that role.
Divorce & the Deadbeat Dad.
The second main route for a fatherless family is
through divorce. The steps in this route for a man would be:
First, the man would marry a woman, and then,
Second, he would become a biological & social
father, and then
Third, a divorce would occur with the mother
receiving custody of any children, then
Fourth, he would fail to make mandated payments
to the mother.
Patterns in petitioning The key questions
become: What are the central tendencies? Who is petitioning for
divorce? An important point to note is that most petitioners are
female. And here a caveat needs to be made. The micro-politics of
divorce can be convoluted, and divorces are not always predicated on
simple, straightforward truths. The legal system -- even in the
simplified world of "no-fault" divorce -- plus deeply felt emotions,
plus ambivalences of divided loyalties create a multi-dimensional
human map with complex stratagems and motivations (see Chesler 1986;
Luepnitz, 1982; Maccoby & Mnookin 1992; Wallerstein & Blakeslee 1989;
Wallerstein & Kelly 1980). For example, a petition may occur more as
a preemptive strike than as a marker for the more dissatisfied
partner. In gist, however, although there is probably not a perfect
consonance between marital reality and who petitions versus who
responds, there is probably a substantial overlap between the stated,
overt dissatisfaction and the actual, covert dissatisfaction of a
marriage entering into the arena of dissolution. End of caveat.
Because all the states have some equivalent of
"no-fault" divorce, if one spouse wishes to end the marriage, the
divorce will occur. Legally, the wishes of the respondent are
irrelevant. Custody of children and property can be contested, but
the divorce, itself, cannot be contested.
In the interval for which data are available both
by petitioner and by number of children, 1982-1986, the mean
percentage of divorces petitioned by men was less than the mean
percentage petitioned by women at all numbers of children (zero
children to three-or-more). The low percentage for the wife was 55.9%
at zero children and the high was 65.7% at three-or-more children.
The low percentage for the husband occurred at three-or-more children
(27.4%) and the high was at 35.5% when zero children were involved
(National Center for Health Statistics 1989, 1996). In 1988, 32.5% of
all divorces were petitioned by the husband and 60.7% of the divorces
were petitioned by the wife (number of children were not available)
(National Center for Health Statistics 1996). Again, women
predominated as petitioner. See Buckle et al. [1996) for a similar
pattern in England and Wales, and see the Beijing Review (1995)
for a similar pattern in China. Here, too, the U.S. numbers are not
trivial. For the U.S., in 1990, 1,075,000 minor children were
involved in a divorce situation (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1996).
Germane to this exercise is what happens when at
least one child is involved in the divorce. When comparing childless
divorces to the divorces with at least one child, the percentage of
women petitioners increased when a minor child was involved and the
percentage of men petitioners decreased when a minor child was
involved. That is, when a child is added to marriage, mothers became
more prone to petition for divorce and fathers became less prone to
petition for divorce.
The following figures are of special interest.
The percentages of husbands' petitions in marriages with no
children were higher (35.5%) than the percentages of husbands'
petitions in marriages with one child (27.8%), two children (27.6%)
and three or more children (27.4%) (Z-scores of 49.8, 46.7 and 33.7
respectively; p < .001; 2-tailed). [Note that, after the first child,
as additional children are involved in a divorce, the father's
tendency to petition for divorce does not change. The figures are
virtually identical (one child, 27.8%, two children, 27.6%, and
three-or-more children, 27.4%).
This pattern of the husbands contrasts sharply
with that of the wives' pattern. For the wives, the percentages of
petitions in marriages with no children (55.7%) were lower
than the percentages of petitions in marriages with one child (64.8%),
two children (64.7%) and three-or-more children (65.6%) (Z-scores of
55.1, 50.1, and 39.1 respectively; p < .001; 2-tailed). Again, after
the first child is considered, additional children do not affect the
tendency to petition. The figures are one-child (64.8%), two children
(64.7%), and three-or-more children (65.6%).
When considering all of the divorces petitioned
by the husbands, 51.3% of all of their petitions were from childless
marriages. For wives, only 41.8% of all of their petitions were from
childless marriages. The percentage of husband's petitions (51.3%) in
childless marriages was significantly higher than
that of the wives' (Z-score = 64.7; p <.001; 2-tailed). However, for
divorces with one, two, and three-or more children, the percentage of
wives who petitioned for divorces was higher than
similar figures for husbands (Z-score of 35.8, 30.8, and 21.0
respectively; p <.001; 2tailed). It should be noted that once a
divorce occurs, the tendency is that contact between the biological
father and his child diminishes rapidly. See Dudley (1 991),
Furstenberg et al. (1 983), Furstenberg et al. (1987), and Seltzer
(1991) for examples and figures. See Braver et al. (1991) for a
discussion on reasons for the lessened contact. Accordingly, the
legalistic notion of "visitation rights" which is devised to maintain
contact between the father and his children is usually supplanted by
the behavioral pattern of an ever lessening father-child contact.
Let's return to those fathers who were separated
from their children via divorce. Almost two-thirds (65.1%) of the
divorces involving children were petitioned by the mother, not the
father. With the earlier caveat of the intricacies and machinations
of divorce strategies and counter-strategies still in effect, it is
clear that it is the mother who is mainly responsible for the legal
separation of the father from his children. To investigate the
magnitude of, the gender asymmetry, let's follow a normative cohort of
100 married men (from Mackey 1996).
U.S. Divorce Data and married men.
Sixty to eighty men will marry, but not divorce.
Twenty to forty men will divorce: two-thirds of
the divorces involve 0 or 1 child (13 to 27 men) :one-third of the
divorces involve two-or-more children (7 to 13 men).
Thus, most men who become biological & social
fathers have entered fatherhood for the long haul, at least until
their children reach adulthood. They marry, become a parent, and
stay in that role. Those fathers that do separate (or are separated)
from their children represent a small minority of fathers as a class.
Parenthetically, although indelicate to present,
the idea of cuckoldry is quite relevant. It is clear that men do
initiate some divorce proceedings. If a husband becomes aware that the
child whom his wife has delivered was not his child, but another man's
biological child, then the husband has a choice to make. He can
decide to be a social father to another man's lineage, or, on the
other hand, he may have no intention of raising another man's child.
At that moment, were the husband to petition for a divorce, from his
perspective, he has terminated a childless marriage. And, again from
his vantage point, his divorce involved zero children. Husbands
generally take a very dim view of being cuckolded (Shapiro 1987;
Sullivan & Allen 1996; see Ellis & Walsh [1997] for estimates of
percentages of children born into such circumstances). Jealousy
cum cuckoldry have resulted in many a violent denouement (see Daly
& Wilson [1987, 19881 and Blankenhorn, [1995] for discussions on
family violence).
Of the 7 to 13 men who marry and divorce with
2-or-more children, only 2 to 4 of the men would have initiated the
divorce proceedings. How were the figures of 2 to 4 men generated?
From Table 1, about 27.5% of the divorces involving two-or-more
children were petitioned by the father; thus (7 men x 27.5% =1.925 or
2 men), and (13 men x 27.5% = 3.575 or 4 men). Thus, for a cohort of
100 married men, only 2%-4% of the men petition for a divorce
involving 2-or-more children. If a non-zero percentage of the men
also gain custody of their children, then the figures for fathers who
deliberately desert their children are even less.
Perceptions of motivations to divorce.
The National Survey of Families and Households (1987) (from Chadwick &
Heaton 1992) asked men and women who had divorced: Who wanted the
divorce? Both the former husbands and the former wives indicated that
it was the wives who more wanted the divorce. The former wives,
compared to the former husbands, were more salient in the female
bias. That is, the women's estimation of their own wishes to
terminate the marriage was higher than the men's estimation of the
women's wishes to terminate the marriage. Thus, the "court" data --
quantitative in character -- on a female bias to petition for divorce
is consonant with the "perception" data -- qualitative in character --
from the surveyed participants.
Reasons to divorce
It should be noted that, when surveyed, women
strongly indicate that they want to divorce for reasons of removing
psychological constraints or of removing levels of psychological
unhappiness, i.e. lack of sufficient happiness (Burns 1984; Cleek &
Pearson 1985; Gigy & Kelly 1992; Greif & Pabst 1988; Thurnher, Fenn,
Melichar, & Chiribota 1983). Note also in Table 4 (not re-printed
here, but available from the author), that, across the six surveys,
reasons for divorce which would probably impact directly and
negatively upon the children of the family were not ranked very high
by the women. These reasons are highlighted in the Table. For
example, "financial problems" ranked 5th, 5th, 8th,
9th, 3rd and unranked. "Spouses' drinking"
ranked 7th, 6th, unranked, lst, unranked and
unranked. "Spouse is violent"/Physical abuse" ranked 9th,
unranked, unranked, 3rd, 8th, and 5th.
"Disagreement over children" was ranked in only one survey (Burns 1984
[an Australian study]) and that was a rank of 1 0. Of course, an
unhappy mother may not create an optimum environment for her child;
however, the relative (dis)advantage of such an environment for the
child compared to a fatherless environment remains unknown.
Women's choices
Again, the thesis being offered here is that the
separation of fathers from their children, via divorce, is primarily
driven by women's choices, by mothers' choices. It is at this
juncture, that our, perhaps any, culture may have lurched into a
difficult quandary. Mothers, in large numbers, are choosing either to
preclude men from their role of social father, hence from their own
children, or to peel away fathers from their children through
"no-fault" divorce. A reasonable interpretation is that, in the
mother's hierarchy of priorities, her own independence often has
greater potency than the needs of her child(ren) for a father. To the
extent this reasonable interpretation is accurate for a non-trivial
number of mothers., a structural problem would assuredly arise in the
relevant commonweal.
The image of mothers. In societies across
the world's community of cultures, the image of "mother"
is a very positive one indeed. To wit:
"God could not everywhere, and therefore He made
mothers". Jewish proverb
"It is safer to be in a mother's lap than in a
lord's bed". Estonian proverb
"He's bare of news who speaks ill of his mother."
Irish proverb
"No bones are ever broken by a mother's beating."
Russian proverb
"An ounce of mother is worth a ton of priest".
Spanish proverb
"An ounce of motherwit is worth a pound of
clergy". Scottish proverb
"In the eyes of its mother, every beetle is a
gazelle". Moroccan proverb
Certainly Western literature is replete with a
positive imagery of the Mother-figure or Madonna.
For example,
If I were hanged on the highest hill,
Mother o'mine, 0 mother o'mine
I know whose love would follow me still
Mother o'mine, 0 mother o'mine
-- Rudyard Kipling
Who ran to help me when I fell,
and would some pretty story tell,
Or kiss the place to make it well?
My mother
-- Ann Taylor
Womanliness means only motherhood.
All love begins and ends there
-- Robert Browning.
Jung's (1968) archetype of "mother" reflects the
universally positive image of the mother figure (cf Margolis 1984;
Rohner 1975). On the other hand, the image of the U.S. father has
been batted around like a shuttlecock, from the bumbling Dagwood (Day
& Mackey 1986, LaRossa & Reitzes 1993) to the aloof patriarch (Biller
1974; Biller & Meredith 1975; Coolsen 1993; cf Smuts 1995), to the
egalitarian mother surrogate (Clary 1982; Greenberg 1985; Greene 1984;
Levine 1976), to the sub-par domestic (Coltrane 1996; Coverman &
Sheley 1986; Hochschild 1989; Nakhaie 1995; Shelton 1992; Shelton &
John 1993). Aside from a few Freudian sorties, the American mother
has been virtually taboo to challenge. There have been critics of
different types or emphases of mothering, but the value of a mother,
per se, has remained largely unchallenged. Clearly, as a
matter of contrast, the value of a father in the current U.S. is quite
problematic for large segments of our society.
CONCLUSION
The above data do suggest that a core to the
nuclear family has been fragmented, and it is the mother who is
driving the fragmentation. The question becomes: Why is the mother
not the focus of any analysis of family fragmentation? The following
is an attempt at a partial answer.
Just as "witches" served as scapegoats or vents
for Medieval peasants when forces over which they had no control were
vexing them, e.g. plagues, crop failures, drought, storms (Harris
1974), the Deadbeat Dad, rather than the mother, is much the more
palatable target for our citizens to focus upon and to deride and to
vilify. In the instances of both the "witch" and the "Deadbeat Dad",
the populace can feel like it is doing something in response to a
problem that is otherwise unmanageable. A psychological poultice is
applied which is soothing, but does not address the cause of the
distress.
Castigating "motherhood" itself may create a good
deal of social turbulence. Kuhn's (1962) idea of a paradigm is
relevant here. Virtually all societal baselines or frames of
reference include the mother-child dyad which acts as a spine of the
society (Barry & Paxson 1971; Hewlett 1992; Mackey 1996; Weisner &
Gailimore 1977; cf Schlegel 1972). Attached to this spine is a
consistent on-going man, a social father. The man is usually the
biological father, but occasionally the mother's brother (avunculus)
fulfills the role. This triad of man-woman-child is an epicenter
around which all other societal institutions must seamlessly mesh. If
the woman herself perturbates the triadic core, then it is argued here
that the society really has no perspective on how to deal with the
perturbation. There is no precedent, hence no paradigm, available to
guide societal responses. Thereby, rather than challenge the core
beliefs or assumptions in a commonweal, scapegoats are a much more
inviting, and much less threatening, target. Furthermore, the
end-game for the problem with Deadbeat Dads is easy to imagine. The
men are merely to pay out more dollars. The concept is simple and
concrete. The solution is manageable. Everyone can understand the
dynamics of writing a check. The mechanisms or dynamics by which
women are pressured to forego single parent births or to stay in a
non-ecstatic, non-fulfilling marriage are much harder to envision,
which less execute. Nonetheless, it is argued here that our
mega-tribe has a priority to resolve. Either women's independence is
to be evaluated by the commonweal to be more important than a child's
need for a father or the reverse.
Footnotes
1) Minor sources of
chronic separations of children from their fathers include jail,
military duty, and widowhood (which was formerly the major source of
fatherlessness).
References
Adams, P. L., Milner, J. R. & Schrepf, N.A. .1984. Fatherless
children. New York: Wiley
Anonymous (1995). Triumphing over a deadbeat dad.
People Weekly
44: 147.
Barry, H. & Paxson, L. 1971. Infancy and early childhood:
Cross-cultural codes 2. Ethnology 10: 466-509.
Beiming Review. 1995. China's current marriage patterns.
Beiming Review. 38(August 14th): 11.
Biller, H. B. 1974. Paternal deprivation Lexington, MA. : Heath
Lexington Bks. Biller, H. B. & Meredith, D. 1975. Father Power. (pp.
1-9) NY: Anchor Bks.
Blankenhorn, D. 1995. Fatherless America: Confronting our most
urgent social problem. NY: Basic Books.
Braver, S. H., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, 1. N., Fogas, B. S., & Zvetina,
D. 1991. Frequency of visitation by divorced fathers: Differences in
reports by fathers and mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
61 (3): 448-454.
Buckle, L. Gallup, G.G.,Jr., & Rodd, Z. A. 1996. Marriage as a
reproductive contract: Patterns of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
Ethology & Sociobiology 17: 363-377.
Burns, A. 1984. Perceived causes of marriage breakdown and conditions
of life. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46: 551-562.
Chadwick, B. A. and Heaton, T. B. (eds.)1992. Statistical Handbook
on the American Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press.
Clary, M. 1982. Daddy's home: The personal story of a modern father
who opted to raise the baby and master the craft of motherhood.
NY: Seaview Books.
Cleek, M. G. & & Pearson, T. A. 1985. Perceived causes of divorce: An
analysis of interrelationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family
47: 179-184.
Coltrane, S. 1996. Family Man: Fatherhood, housework, and gender
equity NY: Oxford University Press.
Coolsen, P. 1993. Half full or half empty: Family in society. The
Journal of Contemporary Human Services 74: 3.
Coverman, S. & Sheley, J. F. 1986. Change in men's housework and
child-care time, 1965-1975. Journal of Marriage and the Family.
48: 413-422.
Cross, A. W. 1996. Deadbeat dads under fire.
Good Housekeeping
222: 26-27.
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. 1. 1987. Evolutionary psychology and family
violence. In C. Crawford, M. Smith, & D. Krebs (Eds.) Sociobiology
and psychology: Ideas issues, and applications (pp. 293-310).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. I. 1988. Homicide. NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Day, R. D. & Mackey, W. C. 1986. The role image of the American
father: An examination of a media myth. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies 17: 371388.
Dudley, J. R. 1991. Increasing our understanding of divorced fathers
who have infrequent contact with their children. Family Relations
40: 279-285.
Ellis, L. & Walsh, A. 1997. Gene-based evolutionary theories in
criminology. Criminology 35 (2): 229-276.
Furstenberg, F. F. Jr., Morgan, S. P. & Allison, P.D. 1987. Paternal
participation and children's well-being after marital dissolution.
American Sociological
Review 52: 511-518.
Furstenberg, F. F. Jr, Nord, C. W., Peterson, J. L. & Zill, N. 1983.
The life course of children of divorce:
American Sociological
Review 8: 656-668.
Gigy, L. & Kelly, J. B. 1992. Reasons for divorce: Perspectives of
divorcing men and women. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 18:
169-186.
Greenberg, M. 1985. The birth of a father. NY: Continuum.
Greene, B. 1984. Good morning, merry sunshine: A father's Journal
of his child's first year. NY: Atheneum.
Greif, G. L & Pabst, M. 1988. Mothers without custody .
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Hanson, T.L., McLanahan, S., & Thomson, E. 1996). Double jeopardy:
Parental conflict and step-family outcomes for children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 58:141-154.
Harris, M. 1974. Cows, pigs, wars, and witches. NY: Random
House.
Hewlett, B. S. (ed.) 1992. Father-child relations: Cultural and
biosocial contexts . Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hochschild, A. R. 1989. The Second Shift: Working parents and the
revolution at home. NY: Viking.
Hofferth, S. L. & West, J., & Henke, R. 1994. Access to early
childhood programs for children at risk. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education.
Jung, C. Gm 1969. Man and his symbols. NY: Doubleday.
Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Laabs, J. J. 1995. Clinton cracks down on deadbeat parents.
Personnel Journal 74:
11-12.
LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. 1993. Continuity and change in middle
class fatherhood, 1925-1939: the culture-conduct connection.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 55: 455-468.
Levine, J. A. 1976. Who will raise the children? New options for
fathers (and mothers). New York: Lippincott.
Luepnitz, D. A. 1982. Child Custody. NY: Lexington.
Maccoby, E. E. & Mnookin, R. H. 1992. Dividing the child: Social
and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Mackey, W. C. 1996. The American father: Biocultural and
developmental aspects. NY: Plenum
Mansnerus, L. 1996. Collecting from deadbeat dads.
Good Housekeeping
222: 157.
Margolis, M. 1984. Mothers and Such. NY: Basic Books.
Nakhaie, M. R. 1995. Housework in Canada: The national picture.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies 26: 417-422.
National Center for
Health Statistics 1980-1991. Vital statistics of the United
States (marriages and divorce). Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Center for
Health Statistics 1989. Children of divorce. Vital and health
statistics. Series 21, #46. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 8901924.
Public Health Service.
Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Center for
Health Statistics. 1996. Vital Statistics of the United
States,1988 vol. III: Marriage & Divorce. Washington, D.C.:
Public Health Service.
Phares, V. & Lum, J. J. 1997. Clinically referred children and
adolescents: Fathers, family constellations, and other demographic
factors.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 26: 216-223.
Popenoe, D. 1996. Life without father: Compelling new evidence that
fatherhood and marriage are indispensable for the good of children and
society. NY: The Free Press.
Rohner, R. P. 1975. They love me, they love me not. New Haven,
CT: HRAF Press.
Schlegel, A. 1972. Male dominance and female autonomy. New
Haven, CT: HRAF Press.
Seltzer, J. A. 1991. Relationships between fathers and children who
live apart: The father's role after separation. Journal of Marriage
and the Family. 53: 79-101
Shapiro, J. L. 1987. The expectant father.
Psychology Today
(January): 36-42.
Shelton, B. A. 1992. Women, Men, and Time: NY: Greenwood Press.
Shelton, B. A. & John, D. 1993. Does marital status make a difference?
Journal of Family Issues 14(3): 401-420.
Smuts, B. 1995. The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human
Nature 6: 1-32. Sullivan, R. & Allen, J. S. 1996. Cuckoldry,
divorce, and evolution: A study of New Zealand Supreme Court
Statistics of Divorce 1922 - 1987. Paper presented at the Human
Behavior & Evolution Society 8th Annual conference.
Northwestern University, Evanston,
Illinois.
Thurnher, M. Fenn, C. B. Melichar, J. & Chiribota, D. A. 1983.
Sociodemographic perspectives on reasons for divorce. Journal of
Divorce 6: 25-35. U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1996.
Statistical abstract of the United States: 1996 (116th
ed.) Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Van Biema, D. (1995). Dunning deadbeats.
Time 145: 49-50.
Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. 1989. Second chances: Men,
women & children: A decade after divorce. NY: Ticknor & Fields.
Wallerstein. J. S. & Kelly, J. B. 1980. Surviving the breakup: How
children and parents cope with divorce. NY: Basic Books.
Westfall, D. 1994. Family Law. St. Paul, Minn.: American
Casebook Series.
Weyrauch, W. O., & Katz, Sanford N. 1983. American Family Law in
Transition.
Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National
Affairs.
Weisner, T. S. & Gallimore, R. 1977. My brother's keeper: Child and
sibling caretaking.
Current Anthropology 18: 169-190.
Page Location:
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/vengence.htm