'Taken into Custody': the toll children pay for divorce

Veteran Catholic journalist Phil Lawler of CatholicCulture.org recently posted a commentary about Stephen Baskerville's book Taken Into Custody. Phil writes (excerpted; click here to see the entire commentary):

Taken Into Custody ... is a revealing, frightening book about (as the subtitle puts it) 'the war against fatherhood, marriage, and the family.' The author explains how, in response to the urgings of feminists that women must be protected, the courts have turned against fathers. A married man can be taken from his own home, ordered to stay away from his own children, compelled to pay expenses that he cannot control, slapped with a restraining order — all without any plausible evidence that he has done anything wrong!

Does that seem implausible? It did to me. Yet Baskerville provides the evidence. Once a woman declares her interest in leaving her husband, our legal system provides her with every advantage — provided that she does not relent in her determination to punish the father of her children. A small army of lawyers, social workers, and family-court officials will mobilize to protect her — whether or not there is any evidence of a threat. The courts will relax standards of evidence, making it easier for her to claim that her husband is a danger to their children and perhaps to society. The same coalition will form once again to demand heavy alimony payments — whether or not the estranged husband can afford them. If he drops behind in these payments, the man is vilified as a 'deadbeat dad,' and the legal system turns against him with renewed ferocity. He may be unable to find a job, to rent an apartment, to keep his own wages. He has become an outlaw. And again, this can all happen without any substantial evidence of wrongdoing.

Sometimes a family breaks down because a man betrays or abuses his wife. When that happens, the law should protect the woman and the children, and punish the offender. But the law should not presume the man's guilt; the courts should not operate on the assumption that a father is a danger to his children.

Above all, the legal system should work to preserve — not sunder — the marital bond. With the acceptance of 'no-fault' divorce, our legal system has done just the opposite. Baskerville demonstrates convincingly that our courts are biased not only against fathers and husbands, but also against intact marriages....

I thought I'd ask the fiercely-compassionate-but-don't-you-dare-mess-with-her pro-life Catholic attorney — and single mom of two — Nora Doherty, who resides here in Chicago (and who's a friend of mine), for her comments on Phil's article.

Said Nora in an e-mail:

"Society took a turn for the worse with the implementation of so-called 'no fault' divorce. But how can anybody say with a straight face that neither the husband nor the wife is at fault when a family splits up? You can always fault them for picking the wrong mate, leaving God out of their marriage, neglecting the relationship, and for taking the marriage contract too lightly. Lack of effort, prioritizing career over family, addictions to porn, and infidelity necessarily wear on a marriage until it breaks.

"Many husbands think that they are unequivocally entitled to their nuclear family unit bliss so long as they pay the bills and avoid cheating. After years of allowing their wife and children to play second fiddle to their career, hobbies, friendships, and sometimes porn, the wife may eventually decide that she'd rather be alone. Is it imprudent for her to make this decision absent serious abuse or indiscretion on his part? Probably so. But most women would say that her decision to leave, as imprudent as it may have been, was merely a reaction to her husband's imprudence. Since most explanations for marital breakdown follow this circular logic, it seems to me that 'no-fault divorce' is really an oxymoron.

"It is expensive for a man when his wife leaves him. If more men knew that going into the marriage, they might be more diligent about choosing the right wife and maintaining the strength of the relationship over the years. In the case of a couple where the man worked and the woman was a homemaker, the court — through alimony/maintenance and/or child support — basically orders the man to financially maintain two households instead of one. Since the family probably chose a marital home that would cost an appropriate percentage of the man's net income, this is like the judge dishing out more pie than the man has thus far been capable of baking.

"In the case of a married couple where both husband and wife were working, their marital standard of living is typically predicated on their combined demonstrated or prospective earning ability. They sometimes try to maintain two separate homes of the same caliber as their marital home. They eventually realize, however, that they will both have to downsize and move to a cheaper neighborhood. Sometimes this involves uprooting their kids from their schools, friends, and standard of living. Spouses who have grown accustomed, indeed entitled, to their marital standard of living many times put themselves into serious debt in an attempt to maintain the status quo. Doubled housing expenses coupled with customarily astronomical legal fees forces many divorcing spouses into bankruptcy.

"Sometimes a man will agree to an unfavorable financial settlement in exchange for an agreeable custody and visitation arrangement. Others hasten financial settlements detrimental to their own interests so they can be 'free' of the marriage and quickly resume dating. Once the financial obligations become burdensome, however, they can complain to the judge and have their monthly payments lowered, thereby leaving the woman unable to cover the monthly expenses for the children. The judge will essentially renegotiate the financial obligation to support the woman, but will not contemporaneously alter the custody and visitation arrangement, which may have been negotiated in light of a favorable financial settlement. Said another way, concessions made by the wife with regard to a visitation schedule are permanent, but the financial obligations promised by the husband can be altered.

"An under-reported fact in my home state of Illinois is that 50 percent of fathers who fight for sole legal and physical custody actually win. This statistic is somewhat misleading for two reasons: (1) The vast majority of fathers do not pursue sole physical custody; and (2) those fathers who feel called to expend the time, money, and effort wresting a child from a primary caregiver are typically doing it for a very serious reason such as substance abuse or mental illness, thereby increasing their likelihood of success.

"Some less honorable men are pursuing custody to torment the estranged wife, to exact revenge, or to regain some sense control over their life (and their wife). Some high-earning fathers want full custody because it would be much cheaper to hire a full-time nanny than to give 20 percent of his wages to the ex-wife. At this point in the marital breakdown he oftentimes loathes the idea of giving her even one penny.

"Most fathers don't want to spend the sum needed to prevail at a custody hearing: Legal costs and fees easily exceed tens of thousands of dollars in most cases. Most of the time, the men don't actually want to be a full-time father, anyhow. After all, if fatherhood was ever their primary goal, would the marriage have broken down in the first place?

"Some non-custodial fathers bemoan the fact that their child support is over-burdensome and impossible to pay. For every one of those men, I will show you 10 women who think that child care, housing costs, clothing, food, and healthcare costs are also over-burdensome and particularly impossible to pay when the non-custodial parent does not comply with court-ordered child support.

"If you were to observe one of the child support court rooms in Cook County for a day, you'd see father after father telling the judge that he cannot pay his child support. In many of these cases, the judge will question why the man has a $500 per month car payment, yet claims that he simply cannot pay $400 per month in child support. The truth is that many men place a higher value on their own personal comfort than on their children's needs. Vacations, fancy gym memberships, large apartments in high-rent districts are all subject for discussion when a man says he simply can't afford to support his kids.

"The State of Illinois requires the man to live off 80 percent of his net income and pay 20 percent to the custodial parent if he has one child (a higher percentage is paid if there's more than one child). Some men find it impossible to sacrifice by living off less than they did before, so they evade compliance with the court order. Things can quickly get oppressively expensive if he has racked up failed relationships with multiple women who are raising his children.

"Many states have instituted child support enforcement programs. Much of the funding actually comes from the federal government. The state takes an interest in enforcement of child support due to the fact that it provides the children food, shelter and medical care when the mother is not working. All state support is recoverable from the non-custodial parent once a child-support order is put into place. Therefore, in order to receive government support, the custodial parent must agree to allow the state to pursue child support and she must also release the funds to the state.

"In my home state of Illinois, the following remedies are available to enforce child support against a man who says he just can't pay:

Offset of any forthcoming federal or state income tax refund


Denial of a passport or passport renewal


Report the non-custodial parent to the credit reporting agencies


Referral to private collection agencies


Place liens on personal property or bank accounts


Place liens on real property


Garnish wages


Prevent license renewal with state licensing agencies


Prevent the non-custodial parent from obtaining a fishing or hunting license


Post photo on the State of Illinois website for deadbeat parents


Body attachment


Drivers license suspension


Felony prosecution


"These remedies are unavoidable. That being said, the state enforcement process is extremely slow-moving. Many non-compliant fathers get lulled into a false sense of security that no adverse consequences will ever result from their refusal to follow court orders. Of course, the day eventually comes when they can't buy property, get credit, open a bank account, travel out of the country, take home their whole paycheck, drive a car, go fishing, or own any assets. These limitations make it nearly impossible to pursue and marry another woman, particularly if the man is already paying child support to the children of more than one failed relationship.

"Eventually, the non-compliant debtor can no longer avoid criminal prosecution and will live in constant fear that a routine traffic stop or even fishing without a license will land him in jail indefinitely. Once the situation has progressed to this stage, the man will usually tell people that he is persecuted and that the system is not fair. Meanwhile, some single mother somewhere has somehow been feeding, clothing, and housing her kids for years without any support from him. Somehow the man, nearing the reality of jail time, will not consider this fact when assessing the equity of the system.

"Men should be very careful about taking marriage vows and/or creating children. Even men who have been able to resist all forms of self-sacrifice for their entire lives will be forced by the law-makers and judiciary to sacrifice for their children. The laws compelling personal responsibility regarding the support of one's children are harsh. Be that as it may, being raised by a single mother who cannot provide for your needs is actually much worse."

Links: http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

 Doherty