Contributed by David Vesper
What are the consequences of fatherless homes?
Part one of the, “Why do fathers abandon their children?” series discussed a hypothetical, but common occurrence of custodial interference in Alaskan high-conflict custody situations. Part two of the series discussed how Alaskan law creates a combative, winner-take-all situation in custody cases. Part three will discuss the consequences of fatherless homes as a result of custodial interference.
In 2014, Wake Forest psychology professor, Dr. Linda Nielsen, analyzed 40 different custody studies. Her goal was to establish a link between shared parenting outcomes on effected children of dissolved personal relationships of the parents compared to the children residing with one parent 35% or more of the time. She broke down the outcomes into five domains: academic or cognitive outcomes, emotional or psychological problems, physical health and smoking, quality of father-child relationships and outcomes of shared parenting plans. Dr. Nielsen determined shared parenting had a link to positive outcomes of children categorized by their physical, emotional and behavioral well-being.
If shared parenting had positive outcomes, why do other researchers admit a decline in fathers’ involvement with their child(ren) in post-separation or unwed relationships in which the father does not cohabitate with them? It usually stems from a high conflict relationship between the parents.
I conducted a survey of non-custodial Alaskan parents through a University of Alaska, Anchorage Social Science Research Methods class in the fall of 2017. The demographic of 85% fathers reflected the same outcomes at the national level. Within the survey, 83.19% of the respondents reported one or more allegations of wrongdoing against them in their child custody cases such as child abuse, domestic violence, drug abuse and mental health issues. Of those non-custodial parents, 39% alleged the other parent is committing parental alienation (custodial interference in legal terms). This transference of hostile intentions between the parents resulted in only 26% of the respondents have spent time with their children in the past week. Another 13% on non-custodial parents reported physically seeing their children after longer than a week but less than a month. While 30% of noncustodial parents reported that it has been over a month since they saw their child last and another 31% reported that it has been over a year. For those that had not seen their child in over a year, the range was 14 months to 9 years for an average mean of 36.47 months.
However, many lawyers associated with the BAR Association will use their credentials as lawyers to persuade lawmakers to maintain the same outdated, combative system. They argue the rise of high conflict parental relationships warrants single parent custody as the child’s best interest. In 2017, Dr. Nielsen characterized many child custody research conclusions supporting Single Parent Custody as often “sensationalized” and “exaggerated”. She suggested professionals working in child custody issues are often “bamboozled” or simply “woozled” in the defense of single parent custody. Socially, many fathers leave the family believing their absence is in the best interest of his child in high conflict parental relationships. However, Dr. Nielsen determined there were “no significant differences” in the outcomes of children in which their families are considered high conflict in either joint physical custody or single parent custody situations.
So, what leads many Alaskans down this path? Simply money. The Alaska Child Support guidelines use a percentage-of-obligor model that transfers familial wealth from one parent to another. Also, visitation amounts are fed into that guideline. If a judge could restrict the noncustodial parent’s visitation to 110 days or less, it would maximize the amount of child support to the custodial parent. In Alaska, 110 days, or 30% is still considered joint custody. This aspect of child custody often raises tensions in the family and lead to actual domestic violence or other abuse such as parental alienation. Parental alienation could be considered emotional abuse towards the child and other parent.
What Alaska requires is a presumption of equal custody between the parents. This is akin to an accused criminal of a crime is presumed innocent until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that presumption could still be overcome with a rebuttal of the fitness of the other parent. Unlike criminal court, family law is adjudicated in civil court. Therefore, the evidentiary standard is much lower at the “preponderance of evidence” standard in which one party is more believable than the other party. Often, the accused has the burden to disprove any criminal allegations that affect a child custody case. This is a travesty and does not effectively protect actual victims of criminal activity such as domestic violence. Instead, parents should arrive in civil court with the presumption that both parents are equally loving and fit parents for their child.
With this election season, I implore those parents adversely affected by the Alaska Family Law system to engage with those candidates seeking your vote. Ask them to support family law reform by starting with the rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared physical custody. Make this issue their issue. Your voice matters, since your child does not have a voice.