Growing Up Without a Dad; Legislative Group
Begins Discussions on Impact of Fatherlessness
by Christine Stuart | August 18, 2008 9:17 PM
Posted to State Capitol
After 40 years in the newspaper business, Chris Powell, the managing editor of the Journal Inquirer, says he has seen everything “that is wrong” in society, “over and over again.”
When it comes to the lack of fathers participating in the lives of their children, Powell says he agrees with David Blankenhorn author of Fatherless America, who called it “the most urgent domestic challenge facing the United States.”
On Monday, Powell told the legislature’s Taskforce on Fatherhood that if he were an elected official, he would make sure there was “no subsidy whatsoever” for mothers who give birth outside of marriage. He said while that may seem Draconian, “it’s only because the problem is so urgent.”
Powell concluded Monday that many pregnancies are not an accident, and the state’s public policy of providing assistance to the child and mother essentially sends a message saying, “There, there, it’s all right.”
But “it’s not all right,” Powell said.
Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford, said Powell’s views were not surprising to him because he has been reading Powell’s editorials for years. LeBeau said Powell’s editorial this past weekend, headlined A city boy’s chances may be better in prison, pinpoints the connection between fatherlessness and recent shooting violence in Hartford.
“But suppressing the mayhem would be only the first step toward addressing the problem,” Powell wrote. “The second would be for Connecticut to realize that nearly everything it has done for half a century in the name of alleviating poverty has been worse than mistaken — that it has massively created poverty, that it has created a city where more than two thirds of the children grow up without fathers, where only a third of high school students graduate, and where, indeed, more high school girls have children outside marriage than graduate.”
Back to the recent shooting in Hartford, which left Ezekiel Roberts, 21, dead, Powell wrote, “The young man murdered after the parade in Hartford leaves a 4-year-old son. If Connecticut won’t urgently rethink its urban catastrophe, the boy might as well be sent to prison now, for his chances there might be better than in the city itself.”
LeBeau said Blankenhorn concluded in his book that males not properly socialized become narcissistic and revert back “to the jungle where there’s a lack of culture.” He said he’s not sure he agrees with all of Blankenhorn or Powell’s conclusions, but he is certain “the culture is not friendly to fatherhood.”
Dr. David Carter, Chancellor of the Connecticut State University System, said Monday that he knows what it’s like to grow up without a father, since his father died when he was 5 years old. However, he said he had a number of male role models in his life.
“Children belong to all of us and we as men have an obligation to serve in a parenting role,” Carter said.
The seven-member Taskforce on Fatherhood will continue to meet until the next General Assembly convenes in January, at which time it will make public policy recommendations to its colleagues.
Comments (11)
Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 19, 2008 4:27 PM
I would love updates on this Christine.
My thoughts is that the lack of fathers participation is at the least part of our problems. One thing I push when I meet people is Child Support Enforcement laws in the state of CT! A lot of state now have mandatory garnishment from day one! . When the laws are followed on contempt of court ect fathers will pay but they are very rarely, from the mothers I have talked to and from info from 211 on the calls they receive on the issue.
Why and how would this make a difference.
1- Mothers that work several jobs 7 days a week maybe able to have some free time to be with their kids
2- Enforcing the father to meet his finical obligation may also make them feel more inclined to spend time with the child since they are invested in them.
3- the sense of pride that is restored to the child that the father even if not present but is supporting them in some way is very important.
4- It will restore a sense for pride for the mothers as well
5- in the long run it will save the state money once it is up and running right.
I have many other thought and ideas on this but I do not want to fill up the comment area :)
PS Remember that changing the system is a good thing, but you can not leave the custodial parents hanging! You must enforce child support laws and that is not happening in many CITIES in the state.
Posted by: Rocco Frank | August 20, 2008 11:21 PM
Best website I could find on this subject is: www.ancpr.org
Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 21, 2008 8:20 AM
Thank for the link Rocco. I am not saying that the father should be put in the poor house! But that the parent that is raising the child should have the support of the laws that are on the books!! I raised my two kids worked several jobs while my ex worked under the table and accumulated 77,000 dollars in child support. So while I worked my ass off to put a roof over my kids head he lives in a shale in VT (which is in his parents name) and did not even buy my kids one pair of socks! But did send 20.00 at Christmas time! I could not get the state to help me a decade of crying and fighting and I finally just had to give up!!! SOOOO Rocco tell my kids that that is his right!!! Thank you very much!!! Tell my kids that not having that money coming in would not have improved the quality of live for them!! Tell you are sorry that their mom was always at work that is why the were latch key kids 7 days a week.
Not once did the state make an effort to hold him in contempt!! NOT ONCE!!!!!! Me and my children had NO RIGHTS IN THIS STATE!!!!! It needs to change for the next generation!!!! I will be the person making that happen!!!!!! But I am just starting but in a few year their will be a bill out their with this proposal!!!
Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 21, 2008 8:22 AM
GRRRRRRR!!!!!!!
Posted by: lothar | August 21, 2008 10:22 AM
Amen to that, CedarHill. Maybe there is a slim percentage of dads out there who were shafted by the system, or whose child support money is being spent frivolously by the custodial parent. But for every one of those I'm sure there are thousands of deadbeats out there, and here's Rocco's site advocating for noncustodial parental rights.
It's the kind of advocacy that, if legislation is written poorly or without a lot of forethought (which it often is), then a new law might end up making it even harder for a single mom or dad to get child support. Ugh.
Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 21, 2008 1:50 PM
PS Rocco do the people of Milford no that you do not stand up for the rights of single parents raising there children?? Don't worry I promise to let them know!
Posted by: Mom | August 21, 2008 2:36 PM
I have to agree that many fathers in the State of CT get the shaft. My daughter was born to two moms. After 15 years of a committed relationship, it ended. Even though we agreed to have this child together and split all the responsibilties, the Courts in CT saw me as the "father" and most fathers in the state get visitation for every other weekend and one night a week. I am all about non-birthing parent's rights regardless of male or female. This state is antiquated in the way it decides custody and child support.
In the meantime fathers and non-birthing parents, pay up. You have an obligation even if it feels unfair. Step up! Your child needs you too. We all have an obligation to be a parent to our children...regardless of the law and whatever nut is on the other side of it.
And, while you all in Hartford meeting about the importance of fathers, don't forget what you really mean is it is most important that a child has the support of both parents regardless of their testosterone levels.
Posted by: A. Young - Concerned advocate for the poor | August 21, 2008 4:18 PM
LeBeau and Powell should focus on bigger issues that affect fathers involvement in family such as racism, discrimination, classism, and poverty. These larger issues impact many social and family roles. The issue of urban violence is very complex and cannot simply be blamed on family structure.
Posted by: lothar | August 21, 2008 8:00 PM
Well, I get that discrimination and poverty are issues in our society. But it's not discrimination and poverty that convince young men and women to have unprotected sex. That's immaturity and a lack of self-control. It's not discrimination and poverty that convinces a pregnant child to then go ahead and carry a baby to term rather than having a first-term abortion while learning the valuable lesson that sex is not a game.
Urban violence is complicated, but it's not that complicated. It's immaturity, impatience, greed, and desperation, some of which come from a life of poverty. But somewhere along the line, someone is telling young men that it's OK to get rich or die tryin', and they're buying into the philosophy no matter whose life is lost.
I like Obama's ideas on poverty in this area... in particular, putting young people to work improving communities to earn money for college. Positive energy is contagious. A young person who gets hooked on helping others will be much better off than a young person with no direction, who's either sponging off his/her parents or living without parents and producing crime and fatherless babies.
Anyway... great comments everyone. Everyone's made a good point here. This is what a community conversation is all about.
Posted by: lothar | August 21, 2008 8:08 PM
Oh and I completely agree that the folks who are talking about this at the capital are framing it in the patriarchal model... a family with two moms or two dads is fine. I'd even support a single-parent model if there was enough money to assure that said parent could do double-duty on raising their kids. The economy just doesn't seem to support that these days.
Posted by: Rocco Frank | August 30, 2008 11:16 PM
To Cedarhillresident: The site I mentioned above is not my site, nor do the opinions expressed in that site in any way represent my own views. The site was mentioned purely as a relevant resource for reader review.
This family issue affects Kids, Mothers, and Fathers and any law or laws drafted should first consider the hearts and minds of kids. The state law is currently good as it advocates for the best interest of the child, not the mother and certainly not the father.
The problem arises when these individually unique cases have to be decided in matter of a short time by judges that are frequently overloaded, rotated, and know nothing nor have the time or patience to learn. Every family history is different and to expect that a harmonious law apply to all is foolish. No law, however just in appearance will ever remedy an injustice by way of a short moment in court.
A viable initial solution would be to first quit rotating family judges (give them time to know the people and cases over time and appearance), and next allow for instant filings so weeks do not have to pass from issue to issue or if there is a mistake made with paperwork. (The more that is allowed in court the more can get resolved.)
The constant wait and paperwork is frustrating, but on the good side one recent improvement I have seen, is the addition of a help desk at the Bridgeport Court. This desk provides paralegal advice to help pro-se or self representing litigants to obtain and file paperwork properly. This service was not available a few years ago.
With all that said, it is ultimately up to the judge to decide and what he decides is the law. Like it or not, right or wrong.