Woman; Child Custody

Why me changing changing. She may be

a woman and interrupt the exploration of the world of women today. Good evening and welcome to woman. Tonight our topic is child custody. My guests this evening were recently involved in a very interesting precedent setting cuts don't deal arrangement with me tonight is Doris Alsace Sauer the noted women's rights attorney. Doris was an active feminist long before the women's movement was recognized. Doris has written extensively on the subject of divorce reform and all aspects of sex discrimination. Also with me is Danielle mowen off. Dan is a businessman writer recent law school graduate and a practicing father. Welcome to both of you. As you know you hear Darth Can you explain to us right away why this is such a unique and interesting case. What made this particular case so fascinating

was that it squarely presented the question of equal rights for fathers. And from a constitutional standpoint it gave the opportunity in a situation where a marriage was terminated. The question arose as it always does in these litigations when a marriage is over and there are children as to. Who will have the children. In this particular case. THE FATHER. Wanted. To participate. After the divorce. In. The raising of his children on a day to day basis in other words he wasn't content to be a weekend father or Saturday father or Sunday Father. He wanted to remain involved to to continue the close association with his children that he had enjoyed during the marriage. Now in this particular litigation because it did in fact turn

into a litigation Unfortunately it couldn't be resolved amicably without a lawsuit being commenced. In this particular case the wife. Wanted to work. She wanted to have a career. And. Then was perfectly willing to stay home. And. Could in fact. Continue his livelihood from the home and enjoy such income as he had. In the home. And he believed that. From that standpoint. He was entitle to to claim the right to bring up the children in the absence of the mother who wanted to work. The mother did not see it from that standpoint. The mother opposed his claim. And it was not possible to work out any any kind of arrangement with respect to this custody to divide custody as it were. At that time and so it was necessary to pursue it in the courts and it was difficult from the standpoint

that I have raised constitutionally to get a judicial acceptance of that right through for for two years 10 years running its joint custody but its equal joint custody right. Well it's joint custody with equal custodial time I say which means a lot more than what. Joint custody has meant. In the. Limited number of cases in which that the concept was applied. Because what we have here really is accomplished what Solomon sought to achieve and that is dividing the child without harm to the children. There are two children involved and what we have is. An arrangement which permits the father to. Be with the with the children. On an. Almost equal. Virtually 50 percent of the time that it ends. Let's talk about how you decided you wanted custody with talk about a little bit about what led up to

this. Well first of all Sandy unlike most fathers that I knew in the circle of friends that that I moved in I had a lot to do with the bringing up of the children. Right from the right from birth. I would die for them also. I would get up in the middle of the night I would help feed them and it was a joint enterprise really right from the beginning. And then when my wife informed me that she didn't want to stay married any longer. I had just graduated from law school. And knew because of what I had learned in law school how difficult it would be for me to. Keep that relationship up with my children. Traditionally the courts of the state of New York do not. Grant custody to fathers. And I knew Doris. And knew that she was a civil rights attorney. And knew that she was interested in equal rights. And I went to her and said.

I have an interesting case. I am home. I can earn my living home. I will postpone my law career if I can have a say in bringing up my children. And I want to Dawson. Thank goodness she consented to. Take the case. And that's what we want to happen. Of course the question from the outset whether I would take even take the case because I was known as a women's rights attorney I don't ask you that have feminist I asked the question. I said I understand you're a women's rights attorney and what I'm asking you do is fight for men's rights I think men are among the most discriminated individuals in the state of New York because of of what doesn't happen in custody cases. And I said my rights are being violated. I am willing to go all the way to make sure that I have a say in how my children are being brought up and I think first of all as I said it has not been mentioned you

know the standard the legal standard in the state of New York is the best interest of the children. And. What I know is that. It is really in the best interest of the children to have a father present that fathers are necessary. I have two sons Michael and Joel they are now seven and five at that time they were four in two. And they need to have a paternal influence around. And I had been there and and helped them grow up and watch them grow up. And they got a lot out of it. Out of a relationship with a father and suddenly because of. What the courts do and don't do. That whole thing was just going to be eliminated from their lives. They would because of the kind of visitation that usually comes down from the courts I would be able to see them maybe every other weekend. For a number of hours. And I didn't want that. Why do you think more men don't fight for this right. Well that's two reasons. One reason is I don't believe that.

Fathers. Are either brought up to believe that they should bring up their children. It's not a part of their consciousness. They. They don't really partake. For the most part in bringing up the children. They get on the train in the morning. They come home late at night. The wife and it's not an easy situation for either really. You know the wife is the one who takes the children to school and picks them up. And it's a matter of really sexist role play. That we're all in. It's all it's an inbred in all of us in husbands and wives and judges and it's inbred in the law itself. And this is the for the reason I was excited about the case because although I am of course and have been for so many years identified with women's rights it's as I see it as a matter of human rights not it's not necessary to put it in terms of women's or men's rights because what is so much the problem here in our law is that the law has

institutionalized sexism has stereotyped roles for women and men. And both of them share equally in being oppressed. So that. It's not only. Men's right to be liberated from the typing which precludes them and excludes them from the participatory role playing in in the child custody area. But it's also an oppression for women who are. Even where they have been liberated to the point that they want a career. They still feel it's a reflection on their maternal role which they see as as something very very important in society is that it's that motherhood mistake that they must nonetheless carry the additional burden of. Exclusive 100 percent child custody. And they must argue against anything except for limited

visitation to the Father. And this is why I say I saw it as important as a women's issue as well although I happen to be representing a man in this particular litigation. It is really from the standpoint of opening up. Opportunities for women outside the home which they are denied now because for an additional reason. Our law has has. Been. Refined to perfection so to speak. The dependent role of women and the breadwinning role of men so that men must have the better jobs the higher paying jobs the most prestigious jobs because after all they must support the wife and children. They must bring home the bacon. So this is a justification and in effect of the discrimination in job employment. And Doris do you think the lawyers encourage male clients who are interested in

custody to go ahead and fight for it. Father To be perfectly frank I think I would have to answer without any question no because. It's a new concept. For one thing. It is certainly. The older generation of lawyers who would be the ones clients would be coming to would have the old attitudes. This is this is something they've grown up to accept. In other words they don't see it as important for a man to stay home and take care of his children. It's a reflection on their manhood just as it's a reflection on a woman's womanhood to allow someone like her husband to take care of the children. I had a woman a lawyer in fact an older woman who's in practice 36 years. She's 63 years old she admitted to me when she made the statement

in a similar case in which I am seeking custody on behalf of the father of a 2 year old child. That there has to be something wrong with a man who would seek to have custody of a child who would be ready to stay home and sacrifice his career. Another is this is something that is has always been accepted as right for women. Even the most talented and gifted women have long been recognized as. Paragons if they gave up their promising career to take care of and stay home and take care of their children. Dan is there something wrong with you. I'll tell you this is what the judge asked him meeting with. Yes he wanted to know why do you want to do this. I mean you're the man. Why do you want to stay home why would you even consider. Staying home and giving your children breakfast in the morning. And especially I just got out of Aussie law school he said. Why don't you want to go on a practice law. And he could not understand that I did want to practise law but there was something more important. Being a father was more important than.

Having my immediate career. And really a question of values I had a judge tell me that recently to end the case involving the attempt to get custody for a father of a young child that. He didn't see why it was necessary for a father to see his child more than once a week after divorce even even that. In other words I could hardly even persuade him to give maximized visitation rights. In other words short of custody which was beyond the willingness of the judge to consider at this early stage. What I attempted to achieve was at least a very very liberal kind of visitation because the parties live around the corner from one another and it's obviously appropriate and yet the judge. In his opinion based on his own personal knowledge and experience feels it's adequate for a child to

to be to be deprived in effect of of paternal visit more than once a week in a minute let's talk about what you know needs to happen to change some of that but first tell me something about what happens day to day in your experience with custody arrangement the custody arrangement as you mentioned before is unique. It's something that we just dreamed up as we were negotiating the arrangement that I have now and joint custody hearing means that when the children are with me they reside with me. They are not. I am not exercising visitation rights. And when they reside with my wife they are residing with her. That's what joint custody in that sense means. Now equal time. It means that I see the children half the year. And the arrangement that we have is that on a four week basis for example on week one. The children are with me Monday Friday Saturday and Sunday. And week to the children with me. Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday and so on through the month. Now what that means is

that. I will pick the children up at school. On Monday afternoon. And I will bring them home and cook them dinner and put them to bed. And Tuesday morning I'll give them breakfast and bring them to school. And then my wife makes arrangements to have them. Either she'll pick them up or have them picked up. And then I see the children again after school on Friday and they spend the weekend with me and I return them to their mothers on Sunday evening. And that's the way it works. And the next week it's a Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday arrangement with us stay with me for those three days in a row and I was very important to us when we fought for this was that. That the children spend time with me on that kind of a continual basis. You know three days at a time four days at a time. That. I fought so hard for that because I knew that seeing the children just. For Saturdays and Sundays just wasn't sufficient for them. For them also especially for them. And they. Were children lation said. Not for the relationship of course but. In relationships that don't have a kind of

arrangement. Children from broken homes don't see fathers. One time I went to pick up my son at nursery school. He was three years old at the time. And I went inside the gate and he came running across the field to me and he showed me something that he had and suddenly I found myself surrounded by 10 15 20 children all pulling at me and tugging at me. And I was taken aback. And one of the counselors behind the children mouthed the words to me that they never see fathers. Now here is a whole nursery school full of children and you never see fathers the mothers always drop them off. The mothers always pick them up. And it was at that time that it convinced me that I had to do what I was going to do and you know go all the way. So really what you're what you're saying it's not so much. Everyone should try this joint custody but you're talking about paternal custody aren't you. I'm talking about not motherhood and not fatherhood you know but parenthood and what happens is that it's usually a matter of broken homes it's a matter of only motherhood is

being kept up. And it's really important for children to see both their parents. Of course the focus of our suit was in terms of paternal custody that that was the issue we presented and that would have been the issue on which it was litigated. Had it gone up through the courts what we did was settle. For what we. Do in our. Life. Joint judgement was considered to be a reasonable compromise of what otherwise would have been a long and bitterly contested battle. This can't work for everyone because everyone doesn't have your particular work situation in order nor does everyone live in the same school dress described was crucial to this particular arrangement. If the parties are 3000 miles apart this is not the particular arrangement that would be appropriate nor think there are other arrangements that would be

if if the parties either voluntarily or are compelled to by virtue of increasing judicial recognition that this is a value that should be maximized. They can achieve it. In other words you can have alternate years you can have alternate six months you can have various arrangements. As long as you want to continue the relationship of father and child. Let's talk about the children for I mean I mean what is this doing to them I mean they're with you a few days in with your wife a few days. How are they reacting to I think they're reacting very well to it. Very I can say that not once in memory Do they ever really react to leaving one place and going to another what they have accepted is the fact that they have two homes where their toys. There are there are 20 was in both places they were close in both places. They have friends in both places. They live when they're going to school they live in the same town they're going to the same schools. And and incidentally excuse me and I just interject.

Before the judge approved the stipulation of settlement in this case. We submitted the children to a psychiatric psychological examination to provide medical. Back up for our contention that this kind of arrangement was not. Going to be emotionally awful to the children because in point of fact the arrangement had been in operation for approximately a year. Even before that stipulation was entered into. So you have to be physically or mentally not not as in as equal to God and it was on a reduced version. But it was not harmful to the children and this was of great importance. Dan what's negative about the situation as far as you are concerned. It's. Speaking for most fathers probably it's the kind of situation where I don't believe most fathers especially myself are really used to being put into that.

Custodial situation. I mean. For me it was a major adjustment to pick up children at school. Cooked meals for them. I mean I had to learn everything right from scratch. I'm a pretty good cook now. The children eat my food. But you weren't biologically incapable of learning. Of course not how we have them that when this is all of that time and it is special you know the judges would say do you mean you you're going to learn how to cook for the children I said I've been cooking for them for two years. And different dishes and I don't mean spaghetti and peanut butter and jelly. And it's difficult it's difficult adjusting to that kind of thing. For me personally it was difficult adjusting to the fact that I was postponing something that I worked very hard to get. It's also difficult to see that there's psychological difficulties emotional difficulties where you've had the children for three days and then you know you're not going to see them again for another four days. And part of our arrangement is I have the children for six weeks during the summer. And there's. That brings on bad times too when you say

goodbye to them after six weeks and you know that you're not going to see them again for another. Five or six days. But. What you have to remember is that this is so unique in terms of. What the alternative could be the alternative could be is that maybe you see your children literally maybe fifty two times a year. And for them therefore it's really very good. And the interesting thing is that when that happens somehow the courts don't seem to be concerned about the psychological effect on the child. It's extraordinary because of what the assumptions are. In other words we know statistically the children of broken homes more often are psychologically disturbed more often often are involved in incidents of juvenile delinquency. And yet we don't look into the underlying. Foundation for that in other words if we look closely we might find evidence of great paternal deprivation in those cases. Those are cases where the mother has been saddled with

all of the burdens you know because it is an enormous job to raise a child. So that. Really well what we are trying to do it seems to me is is is turn around the assumptions let the. Let's. Proceed on the assumption that it would be psychologically advantageous for a child to retain both parents. Now it's unfortunate and and through no fault of the child or children in the usual case all the parents are no longer going to be living under the same roof. But it seems to me why should we why should we allow. Such a result as to. Terminate the father relationship. As well as the husband wife relationship. Why should we take these innocent victims. And assume that it would be harmful for them. As this judge said says he doesn't see any reason why the child should see the father more than once a week. Now I'm not going to have to know Doris what can you have no scientific evidence to

challenge such an assumption he's taking his own personal feelings in other words it may be enough for him if he sees his children once a week and he's using that as a justification to deny this particular father. And in my individual case. Of his right to see his children. Well what can you do what has to happen how much you change a lot. Oh yeah right you know because you have evidence of cases of individuals who in fact one of whom wrote in to Dan after the article in The Times about the case saying that in effect he was punished by a judge because he made such an attempt to seek custody of his his children. In fact the judge gave him less the situation than he would have gotten before without that fight. So you can win their argument I mean hunted in a way that I won't answer your question. You know what can be done. The terrible thing is that I think what has to happen is that more men in one way or another have to do what I did. You have to make a number of sacrifices and you have to fight. There is just no other word for it you have to go to court.

You have to get an attorney like Garces you have to get an attorney who is a matrimonial expert and you have to go to court and you have to fight. The chances are right now in 175 that you're going to lose. Now my settlement was a negotiated settlement. If we had gone to trial I might have lost. We might probably would have had to go on to the appeals courts. But now with more and more fathers will. Make up their minds that. Custody paternal custody is important enough that they're going to fight for it than that can happen. What also has to happen is it has to be a change of attitude in the homes. And I'm not talking now about homes that are already broken up. But even in homes today where people are happily married. Both parents have to insist that fathers we call become more active in bringing up the children that may patch up a lot of marriages perhaps. But

you asked before about. Why a lot of this isn't being done. One reason is that a lot of fathers. Don't have to. You know I never thought about really having custody. It's just a matter of role playing where if if the marriage doesn't work then they say OK I'm going to leave and the children are supposed to be with the mother so I guess that's the way it's supposed to be. The other thing is that not only don't fathers. Think about being a custodial parent. But right now because of the way the courts have been acting over a long period of time. It's too expensive. To go and fight. It's an expensive process which you have to go through court after court. And a lot of fathers knowing that courts will not. Give custody to fathers feel why should they go through that. Why should they go through the expense of another losing battle. But if you have hundreds of cases doing it year after year it's going to happen and it shouldn't. Well you have you have you have several problems there because as Dan points out you have you have

opposition usually from the wife. To the idea. You have opposition even from many times your own lawyer who you might consult who is an IT regard such an idea as unthinkable and then you have opposition of course from the wife's lawyer and then from the from the courts the judges who for example and I in a case that was decided in Utah where the judge remarked in dismissing a father's claim for custody under the equal under the 14th Amendment that it was utterly without merit unless it was to be contended that men were equally gifted in lactation. Now there is no there was no suggestion there that the mother was lactating. So what that had to do with the the claim is it's hard to follow. But this is the attitude judicial attitude that you are. Attempting to change and hopefully will be changed at a time. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you for watching and good night. Production funding provided by public television stations the Ford Foundation and the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A.