Minnesota Fathers & Families Network Blog

website home

June 30, 2010

A message about “father absence” – let’s be intentional in our language

Filed under: Fatherhood, Messaging, Language and Discourse — admin @ 3:01 pm

“Father absence” is a term you hear often. Usually it refers to the father being absent from the same household where the child lives. For example, “Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In 2002, 7.8 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared with 38.4 percent of children in female-householder families.”

But a father not living in the same household as the child does not mean the father is absent from the child’s life. In fact, much of our work at MFFN and in the fatherhood field is to say loud and clear, that a father not living in the home does not make him an “absent father”, invisible, or unimportant, even though our society often treats him that way.

Drawing attention to the importance of fathers by using “father-absent” terms can do a disservice to both fathers AND mothers. It fails to recognize the important role that fathers can play when they aren’t living in the home, and it often leads to blaming or shaming of single-female headed households. And we know that is not what many intend.

What most of us intend is to support fathers, no matter where they live or their family form. We want fathers to be supported in being healthy, active and involved fathers because they raise healthy children, build healthy families and contribute to healthy communities. We can recognize that it is usually easier to be a healthy, active presence in a child’s life when you are able to live in the same home every day as your child while simultaneously trying to make it easier to support fathers who don’t live with their children every day. Finally, we can–and should– support better systems, services and public policies for both types of fathers.

So, next time you hear the term “father absence” think: absent from what? A physical structure? Or a child’s life? Let’s not perpetuate the idea that the only way a father matters is by living in the same home as his child.

June 21, 2010

Shared parenting - A silver bullet?

Filed under: Co-parenting, Family Law, Fatherhood, Public Policy — admin @ 1:19 pm

For unmarried and divorcing parents, determing how to divide a child’s time between the two parents is often a gut-wrenching decision. Recently, MFFN made a policy decision to endorse a number of tools that would support parents in making this decision. We cite a variety of tools that could support the child, lower animosity between the parents, and enable both parents to be involved with their children in a healthy and active way (see more here).

MFFN does not support a legal presumption of joint physical custody because it has not been found to be the “silver bullet” to support the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. For example, in Australia, parents that engaged in a child inclusive mediation often agreed to split time unevenly (with fathers often agreeing on less than 35% of the child’s time). Yet, these fathers expressed more satisfaction than fathers who didn’t have a child inclusive intervention (more here). We believe that families should be presented with various options and resources to facilitate positive parenting time decisions.

Currently, Minnesota does require a 25% minimum parenting time standard for most families. We believe this is a good start toward increasing healthy father-child involvement. And we think there are other effective tools that could be implemented to continue supporting families to make good decisions about co-parenting after divorce or separation.

June 11, 2010

A Good Opportunity To “Get Along”

Filed under: Co-parenting, Fatherhood, Public Policy — admin @ 12:27 pm

With that title, you might have thought I’m talking about our work around coparenting for parents. Actually, I’m talking about the fatherhood and marriage field. The President’s budget plan that calls for using $500 million dollars in fiscal year 2011 in a new Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Innovation Fund is a good opportunity for the fatherhood and marriage fields to assess their relationship to each other, and work to get along for the betterment of both. (For a nice explanation of the proposed Fund, see the posting by the Center for Family Policy and Practice, here.)

As a graduate student in public policy in the late 1990s, I remember the clear divisions between the “fatherhood” folks and the “marriage” folks. Unfortunately, despite a lot of good work, there are still some who want to divide along these lines, rather than unite to support a broader vision of healthy fatherhood and healthy couple relationships.

At MFFN, we subscribe to the notion that supporting fatherhood and marriage (and we would say, much more broadly, supporting healthy relationships, whether it directly leads to marriage or not) are not opposing priorities. Rather, in the words of pre-eminent researchers, “responsible fatherhood and couples’ relationship quality are closely linked rather than opposing priorities.” To quote: “qualitative, longitudinal, and now intervention research findings indicate that a man’s capacity to fulfill his role(s) as father is embedded in his relationship with the child’s mother.” In turn, for parents who live together, strengthening the parents’ relationship has been found to increase the father’s involvement in parenting. (For the full article, read “Policies that Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships,” Knox, Cowans and Bildner, MDRC, here).

The President’s proposed Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Innovation Fund allows support for both fatherhood and healthy relationship support and education. Healthy relationship support and education supports healthy marriages. Like any relationship or marriage, the fatherhood field and marriage field may have points of disagreements. But let’s use this opportunity to find our points of agreement. Let’s show that we can get along, and support passage of the President’s budget plan.

Melissa Froehle
Policy and Program Director

Powered by WordPress