The Fatherhood Movement Essay Example

mothers continued to strengthen in the 1950s and 60s.

With the introduction of no-fault divorce laws in the late 1970s and more women entering the workforce, women gained better access to divorcing from unhappy marriages. Maternal preference in custody battles gave women a significant advantage, resulting in most obtaining sole custody after divorces.

However, during the 1980s, a new fathers' rights movement emerged to address discrimination in divorce laws and unfair child support orders. The National Convention for Men (NCM), composed of approximately 6,000 men represented by 36 organizations, focused on addressing child support and custody rights issues.They were frustrated with the gender bias prevalent in courts, where mothers were granted sole custody in 87 to 90 percent of cases without considering visitation rights for fathers. The NCM emphasized the changing parenting roles brought about by the feminist movement and called for changes in custody laws to reflect this shift. Peter Cyr, president of NCM, urged men to address the isolation and estrangement they often faced from their children. According to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, fathers had minimal contact with their children in over half (51 percent) of sole-custody arrangements. The NCM supported joint custody, which was also a central concern for the emerging Father's Rights movement. This continues to be an important aspect of today's father's rights advocacy.

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, single mothers began facing increased criticism due to a steady decline in two-parent families since 1970 (a decrease of over 11 percent). This trend continued during the nineties. Additionally, there was a significant rise in AFDC cases involving children born to unwed mothers - an increase of more than

twenty percentage points from 1969 to 1992. Shockingly, over three-quarters (77 percent) of "illegitimate" children ended up relying on welfare assistance before reaching one year old.Father's groups advocating for marriage argue that research conducted by the Children's Rights Council shows that a lack of fatherly influence can lead to higher rates of juvenile delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and general neglect. They believe that social policy should promote marriage and discourage divorce in order to address the breakdown of the family and its impact on society. On the other hand, feminist groups support single mothers and present studies suggesting that income has a greater role in predicting juvenile delinquency than whether a household is headed by a female. They challenge the belief that fathers are essential for child development and highlight research from Yeshiva University emphasizing the importance of parent-child relationships regardless of gender. Feminist groups also express concerns about government incentives for marriage potentially enabling abusive or substance-using fathers to become more involved. They question the assumption that joint custody always benefits children, arguing instead that it often exposes them to their parents' post-divorce conflicts. The strength of Father's Rights groups declined after President Clinton focused on deadbeat dads in the early 1990s, which received criticism. The enactment of the Child Support Recovery Act in 1992 allowed negligent parents to face criminal prosecution and led to the creation of the Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents WebsiteSome states, including Massachusetts and Illinois, have begun sharing images and lists of parents who are falling behind on their child support payments. In addition, Washington has implemented a policy that requires fathers to acknowledge paternity before leaving the hospital. This policy

gained popularity nationwide starting in 1992.

In 1996, President Clinton's welfare reform package allowed the Federal and state governments to directly garnish wages from parents who were not meeting their child support obligations. Since 1992, the Federal government has seen an 80% increase in collected child support.

In response to this issue, Clinton pledged an additional $46 million in 1999 towards investigating and prosecuting negligent parents. This sparked a stronger crackdown on delinquent fathers by Father's Rights groups.

The First National Summit on Fatherhood was held in Dallas in 1994 with the aim of reaching a national consensus on reducing father absence rates. Influential community leaders attended the summit, including notable figures like Al Gore, George Gallup, and James Earl Jones. They expressed their support for this movement and proposed innovative strategies for addressing fatherless families.

Following this conference, Wade Horn led the establishment of the National Fatherhood Initiative, which focused on promoting marriage to strengthen families. The success of this initiative was greatly influenced by the Family Values movement.The Republican Revolution in the House of Representatives in 1994 propelled its momentum. In addition, the Million-Man March held in 1995 highlighted the black community's dedication to prioritizing fatherhood and encouraging black men to take responsibility for their families. This event helped form an interracial and mixed-income coalition between liberals and conservatives. As a response to Father's Rights groups' efforts, both the House and Senate established bipartisan congressional task forces in 1997. These task forces were given the responsibility of examining the role of fatherhood within Federal Policy. TIME and Newsday have also contributed to establishing the credibility of the Fatherhood lobby in Washington through their published articles. Over the

past two decades, significant progress has been made by the Father's Rights movement due to their commitment to their children and growing support for their cause. As part of my research, I will analyze three grassroots Father's Rights groups that focus on legislation, policy initiatives, and local programs promoting father involvement. These national-level groups strive to implement changes aligned with their objectives. The aim of this presentation is to examine and discuss different group goals, achievements, and concerns. The first group under examination is National Fatherhood Initiative which aims at influencing social norms related to pre-marital sex and out-of-wedlock pregnancy through public policy.The American Fathers Coalition (AFC) is a group that believes men are systematically discriminated against in courts and laws, resulting in them being legally isolated from their children. They argue that fathers often have their custody or visitation rights denied, which limits their emotional involvement and financial contribution to their children's lives.

On the other hand, the Partnership for Fragile Families is a liberal organization that aims to address the needs of young, low-income minority fathers. They believe that factors such as unemployment or underemployment, lack of psychological readiness for fatherhood, and absence of parental role models during upbringing contribute to fathers' disengagement both financially and emotionally.

It's important to note that not all organizations within the Father's Rights Movement share these perspectives. While mainstream groups are widely appreciated by most Father's Rights activists, some Father's Rights groups do not align with their goals. There are various organizations focusing on different issues related to domestic violence against men or false domestic and sexual abuse charges.

For example, Veto4Fathers advocates for a man's right to veto an

abortion while Choice for Men aims to give fathers a legal right to "abort" their responsibilities towards unwanted children. However, it should be emphasized that these fringe groups do not represent the overall movement.

One significant organization in this field is the National Fatherhood Coalition, which was established in 1994.They define themselves as self-proclaimed, non-partisan, non-profit, and non-religiously affiliated. Their main objective is to restore responsible fatherhood as a national priority by fostering a broad-based social movement. The coalition, led by Wade Horn, gives importance to conservative values and emphasizes the role of fathers in raising children. They advocate for policies that promote marriage and encourage fathers' involvement in their children's lives. Moreover, they support initiatives aimed at discouraging divorce and out-of-wedlock births. With his extensive experience in leadership positions within the Federal Commission on Children, Youth and Families and the Children's Bureau of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Horn brings valuable expertise to this organization. He also serves on the board of Marriage-Savers, a group dedicated to strengthening marriages through "Community Marriage Covenants" that make divorces more challenging to obtain.Horn, alongside three other highly educated board members committed to studying and implementing policies supporting "Family Values," is a well-respected figure in Washington. He influences policy through reliable research such as "Father Facts." The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) engages in various activities including public outreach through advertising in newsmagazines, creating public service announcements, cable television spots, and writing editorials for national newspapers and newsmagazines. NFI collaborates with local and national groups, sharing strategies and information to increase political influence based on guidance from the leaders at the First National Summit on Fatherhood.

They also partner with organizations like the United Way and the Boys and Girls Club. In addition, NFI provides consultation services to government officials at the local and state level. Their publication titled "Seven Things a State Can Do to Promote Responsible Fatherhood" is endorsed by the Council of Governor's Policy Advisors. Furthermore, they work with Governors in Massachusetts, Colorado, Indiana, and California to implement state-specific strategies addressing father absence.The state of Virginia is currently collaborating with the Virginia Department of Health on a statewide campaign promoting fatherhood as part of the Governor's "citizen empowerment initiative." This collaboration involves various initiatives, such as creating public service announcements and organizing local fatherhood forums. Additionally, they are establishing a resource center.

On a national level, this organization has been involved in significant legislation known as the Fathers Count bill. The bill was supported by sponsors Nancy Johnson (R-CT) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD). Its main goal is to reduce child support delinquency by providing $140 million to private organizations for job training and skills development for non-custodial fathers. Although the bill was successful in the House in 1999, it did not pass in the Senate.

Following this setback, a similar bill called the Child Support Distribution Act was introduced in 2000. This new bill grants more influence on funding distribution to the NFI through a council led by Wade Horn, consisting of experts who determine which community-based groups receive grants. Conservative groups strongly endorse this provision; however, liberal activists oppose it due to concerns that it may favor powerful single fathers over single mothers.

In conclusion, despite facing challenges in passing legislation at both state and national levels, efforts have been

made to provide support for non-custodial fathers. The new bill offers forgiveness of child support owed to the state welfare system if fathers marry or live with their children's mother—a measure that provides financial incentives for marriage or sole custody arrangements.Despite the debates surrounding government involvement in moral issues related to marriage and family, progress of The Child Support Redistribution Act bill in the Senate has been hindered. Feminist groups like NOW express concerns that prioritizing marriage may encourage manipulative or abusive fathers to stay involved with their children. However, despite these challenges, the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) has emerged as a significant political force at both federal and state levels and will continue exerting pressure on Congress. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC), a non-profit organization that originated from the AFC lobbying group, aims to create a just family law and legislative system that guarantees equal rights for all individuals affected by divorce or paternity establishment. To assist fathers involved in legal battles, the ACFC focuses on a combination of efforts including lobbying, outreach programs, education initiatives, legal advice services, and support networks. They also offer emotional support specifically for those facing "parental alienation syndrome," where one parent intentionally isolates the other. This belief aligns with other Father's Rights Organizations such as the Children's Rights Council and Fathers and Families who share the view that both parents should be actively involved in parenting.The ACFC emphasizes the importance of joint custody and shared parenting as effective methods during divorce proceedings. They assert that both parents have responsibility for their children's emotional, psychological, and financial needs. The organization also advocates for reforms in child

support and custody systems to accurately acknowledge each parent's contribution. Since its establishment in 1998, the ACFC has made significant progress by uniting father's rights groups under their cause, resulting in 50 chapters nationwide. To encourage community involvement, they have created a Chapter Development Guide for fathers interested in forming local chapters. While maintaining centralized leadership, the ACFC values grassroots efforts and input. They provide assistance through a nationwide crisis line for fathers experiencing divorce or separation and offer tool kits containing legal advice and recommendations on various issues such as paternity suits, custody matters, visitation rights, civil rights violations, false abuse allegations, and domestic violence. Additionally, they plan to develop textbooks that educate children about the importance of two-parent families from both biological and moral perspectives. This initiative stems from their belief that political correctness in school curricula contributes to the decline of American families.However, there are some civil liberties and advocacy groups that oppose this effort. Their concerns revolve around the potential discrimination against women and homosexuals in educational settings. Although public schools are unlikely to adopt these textbooks due to criticism, private schools or religiously affiliated charter schools may choose to use them.

Stuart Little established the AFC as the lobbying branch of the ACFC. The mission of this organization is to advocate for policies that promote father involvement. The AFC argues that current federal and state policies unfairly favor single mothers while treating two-parent families poorly in comparison.

In his role with the AFC, Little has given testimonies before various government entities and collaborated with them. Despite his experience in Capitol Hill, he lacks influence and credibility compared to other fatherhood activists.

One contentious

aspect of the AFC's proposed legislation pertains to welfare benefits for single mothers. While they aim to address different concerns such as male domestic violence victims' rights and eliminating no-fault divorces, their main focus is on reforming welfare programs. However, their 7-point proposal has not received sponsorship from any House or Senate member due to its controversial nature.In my analysis of this legislation, I will present both the AFC's reasoning and opposing rationale for each component of the proposal. The first component suggests that if a mother applies for AFDC money, she will automatically lose custody of her children to their father if he can financially support them. This means that single mothers would only qualify for AFDC payment if the father declines custody or is proven unfit. This arrangement allows women to focus on job training or education while the father takes responsibility for the children. Joint custody becomes possible once she becomes self-sufficient. However, critics are concerned that some women may resort to illegal methods to make ends meet rather than losing their child to an unfit father. They also worry that abusive or unfit parents might obtain sole custody due to financial limitations or emotional vulnerability of the custodial parent.

The second aspect deals with repayment of welfare assistance by women. Currently, any child support received by women on welfare goes directly to the state as reimbursement. According to this proposal, women would be responsible for at least half of that payment and would have to repay it when they exit welfare rolls. Opponents argue that implementing this policy would further push single women into poverty since they will accumulate debt while on

welfare that they won't be able to repay later on.Recipients must present receipts as proof of how AFDC payments benefit the child, with potential loss of benefits if money is spent on non-government approved luxuries. Critics argue that welfare payments are insufficient for families to afford luxuries, making it unjustified to invade their privacy and demean their dignity. States are required to establish paternity at birth in order to legally connect children with their fathers. Additionally, mothers must disclose paternity information in order to be eligible for welfare. Feminist groups such as NOW and the Coalition for the Prevention of Domestic Violence express concerns that this provision may give abusive or unfit fathers legal access, compromising the well-being of both mother and children. It could also unfairly penalize women who are unaware of paternity information. Joint custody is assumed in all divorce cases and for children with known paternity who were born out of wedlock - a perspective supported by father's rights movements but considered oversimplified by some feminists and advocates for children due to its emotional complexity. The proposed "affirmative action" policy aims to improve men's ability to meet child support payments and prioritize job opportunities for non-custodial parents whose children receive welfare benefits.However, concerns arise about potential discrimination against women and individuals without children. The AFC suggests that parents receiving welfare must dedicate 40 hours per week to job-related activities or search, community service, or training programs. They also propose that only one spouse needs to fulfill this requirement in order to address bias against married families.
Critics argue that single women may struggle with childcare and transportation but the AFC counters by stating

that most working parents rely on affordable daycare options. This implies that single mothers may not receive additional support for childcare or transportation, potentially increasing their financial burdens while on welfare.
Despite facing criticism for gender bias, the AFC believes this proposal promotes accountability for women and eliminates gender bias in public assistance. Men who have lost custody due to an unfair court system propose these policies as victims of discrimination themselves; they feel frustrated and uncertain about their options.
The National Center for Strategic Non-Profit Planning (NPCL) was established in 1996 with the goal of aiding community-based organizations and public agencies in better serving young, low-income fathers and fragile families. Fragile families refer to unmarried couples who are young and have children while also being low-income.The NPCL believes that welfare reform measures implemented in 1996 contribute to the separation of fragile families. One concern is that young fathers who establish paternity are required to repay child support with a high interest rate of 18%, which can be overwhelming for those already facing financial difficulties. However, this money does not directly benefit the children; instead, it goes towards repaying benefits provided by the state's welfare system. Consequently, there is little incentive for young fathers to establish paternity, while single mothers face significant consequences if they fail to report paternity and provide contact information. Failing to do so can result in a loss of 25-100 percent of AFDC benefits. This added strain on already fragile relationships may cause fathers to completely disappear from their partner's and children's lives.

To tackle this issue, Jeffrey M. Johnson, an experienced non-profit administrator leading the NPCL, established the Partnerships for Fragile Families (PFF)

initiative as a solution. The initiative recognizes that 61 percent of fathers with children on welfare have an income below the poverty level and that 86 percent of these fathers have an income below the poverty level for a family of four.Even if all children in the United States were to be reunited with both biological parents, as stated by the Census Bureau, which would not always benefit the children, about two-thirds of currently impoverished children would still remain in poverty due to their parents' insufficient earnings. Recognizing that simply incentivizing marriage will not break the cycle of poverty for these children, the PFF (Parenting and Fatherhood Foundation) initiated a pilot program in 1996. This program aimed to foster collaborations between community-based organizations and child support enforcement agencies in ten cities. The objective of this initiative is to assist "deadbeat dads" in resolving their debts towards their children and the welfare system instead of resorting to intimidating tactics for enforcing payment. Similar to conservative father's rights groups, the PFF believes in holding delinquent fathers accountable and promoting employability. However, unlike these groups, the PFF primarily focuses on providing training and support services rather than issuing ultimatums and leaving fathers on their own. The PFF organizes workshops for community-based groups to share insights on effectively supporting vulnerable families and young fathers. Additionally, they have developed a curriculum called "Fatherhood Development: A Curriculum for Young Fathers," which serves as a helpful guide for community organizations working with young fathers.The curriculum of the PFF focuses on personal growth, encouraging reflection on values and promoting progressive definitions of manhood and self-sufficiency. Its goal is to equip fathers with essential

life skills such as communication, stress management, and handling discrimination. The curriculum also emphasizes responsible parenting by discussing various aspects such as meeting children's needs, cognitive and emotional development, effective discipline techniques, anger management, conflict resolution strategies, and navigating relationships with mothers.

In addition to these topics, the curriculum encourages pursuing long-term careers and provides recommendations for escaping minimum wage jobs. The PFF conducts Peer Workshops at a national level for child support enforcement agencies and federal policymakers. These workshops emphasize respect for "dead-beat" dads while helping them become better fathers emotionally and financially.

The PFF also addresses systemic barriers faced by young fathers and advocates for innovative strategies to overcome obstacles. Although they have less political influence compared to the NFI (National Fatherhood Initiative), the PFF initiative along with NCPL (National Center on Parenting & Leadership) have gained attention for their successful programs.

The main objective of the PFF is to intervene early with fathers and their young children in order to prevent irreversible damage in fragile family relationships. Critics argue against funding for fathers who refuse financial support; however, the PFF aims to help fathers who genuinely cannot provide for their children.PFF, as a part of the Father's Rights Movement, along with other community-based groups, has had a positive impact on children's lives through effective strategies. However, these pilot programs have limited reach and achieving significant change will require a broader and more committed commitment. In order to establish a comprehensive coalition with notable achievements, the fatherhood movement needs to find common ground between its left and right factions. Both sides agree on prioritizing the best interests of children when it comes to child support and

custody laws. They also agree that changes in custody laws alone cannot solve America's "crisis of fatherlessness" as described by Wade Horn.

The pro-marriage sector of the movement focuses on government promotion of values such as marriage, fidelity, love, affection, nurturing, and compassion in order to address father absence and reduce welfare dependency. However, legislating these aspects presents challenges.

On the other hand, the left wing advocates for compassion and nurturing towards children and their mothers through fatherhood programs that assist unmarried or divorced/separated fathers. Ron Mincy from the Ford Foundation recognizes the importance of encouraging marriage whenever possible but suggests that professionals should prioritize fostering a strong connection between fathers and children for dysfunctional or unmarried parents.On the other hand, the right-wing is cautious about providing funding for expensive and unpredictable intensive programs that can effectively support all families.