05/08/2005
New York Times Press Gives Major Press Coverage for Fathers
View file

The cover story of last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine section concerned the fathers’ custody movement. If you zoom up in the helicopter, the big picture is – what a great day for the fathers’ movement, to be featured on the front page of the New York Times Sunday Magazine!

Click here for the link.

Back on the ground, though, the close-up details aren’t so pretty. Right at the beginning, we read, “…custody determinations are traditionally based on what’s in ‘the child’s best interest.’ But some fathers are now arguing – and agitating – for rights and interests of their own.”

Author Warren Farrell translates this as follows: “The press is telling us, mother custody equals ‘the child’s best interest.’ But shared custody, or fathers’ custody, equals rights and interests of men before children.” In reality, children do best when there is a balance between mom and dad.

Instead of this larger reality, though, we get three large color photographs of scowling, unpleasant-looking fathers. Each of the five outside authorities who are quoted oppose what we want. The few statistics that are quoted all undermine us. There is not a single quotation or statistic from the dozens of eminent scholars who believe children of divorce and separation need more time with their fathers.

The article also fails to capture the human side of our movement. The reporter, who was kind to Fathers & Families and to me, wrote that I “made an eloquent case for increasing fathers’ access to their kids.” But that case was not printed; the heartstrings were never touched.

For the human tale, a reader had to go to page 9 of the Sunday Styles section. There, a lengthy, emotional article with the moving title
"Losing Custody of My Hope ," described the agony of a custody battle in heartrending detail. The terror of having a stranger decide your fate as a parent. The humiliation of the psychological evaluation. The absurdity of being required to take parenting education from twenty-somethings who have no children and have never been divorced. The shame of realizing you are parenting defensively, to avoid possible attacks in court.

The author and subject, as you may have guessed, is a mother. This woman, though trashing her ex-husband for wanting to be a real parent to his children, makes our case in a way the magazine cover story fails to do – by touching the heart. And it shows that no fit parent, mother or father, should be subjected to this torture. The grinding machinery of the courts is simply unnecessary in most cases. The alternative is so simple – shared parenting, so that both parents are assured they will remain intimately connected to their children.

Warren Farrell seems to have it right. Even the most intelligent press is relying on stereotype: when mothers want custody, it’s for the children. When fathers want custody, it’s about their rights.

And the Sunday Styles article shows that when an occasional mother’s custody is threatened, the press considers it tragic. When thousands of fathers lose their children every day, it’s humdrum – not a story.

Still, let’s not lose sight of the fact that there is far more positive here than negative. Susan Dominus, the reporter who wrote the magazine piece, is a likable, intelligent and fair-minded person who came far closer to getting it right than most reporters we have encountered. And the cover of the New York Times Sunday Magazine – wow!

BACK