Keith Pounds, conservative and libertarian views

Keith Pounds

The war on fatherhood in South Carolina

Keith Pounds, MBA

South Carolina Fathers Initiative

Keith.Pounds@alumni.aiuonline.edu

January 21, 2011

(A work in progress)

This paper addresses current views and perspectives on the issue of “deadbeat dads” in South Carolina. It offers empirical data showing that fathers are not “abandoning,” or walking away from, their children and shows that the “footprints” are most often facing in the other direction. This paper suggests that mother interference in child-father visitation and anti-male bias in the family court system are two prominent factors in the creation of the “deadbeat dad” phenomenon. This paper shows that the absence of fathers is directly responsible for devastating effects on our nation’s youths leading to elevated levels of low school performance, high dropout rates, crime, truancy, delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse, and a host of other social ills. In conclusion, this paper strongly supports a re-address of our current views on the importance of child-father relationships and a presumption of truly equitable “Shared Parenting” in all child custody and support legal cases.

According to popular wisdom, far too many men abandon their families (physically and financially) leaving women and children devastated and overwhelmed. This wisdom suggests that government assistance is required for custodial parents (most often mothers) in the form of elevated child support, housing, food stamps, and other social services to make up for father absence. In addition, it is most often assumed that mothers are better caretakers of children than are fathers. Family Courts are prone to grant child custody to mothers, over fathers.

While many fathers are burdened with child support payments, they are very often simultaneously denied child visitation by the mother of their children. As a result, many children are reared with little or no contact with their father. Overwhelming research shows that children deprived of very important child-father relationships and bonding have disproportionately high rates of truancy, criminal activity, alcohol and drug use, poor school performance and high dropout rates. The research examined in this paper strongly suggests that in order to adequately address the myriad of social ills in today’s society it is imperative that mothers and family courts understand that one of the most important factors in successful child development is “fathers.”

As a methodology, this research examined empirical studies showing the relationships between never-married, as well as separating and divorced, mothers and fathers to discover common relationships between the two parties. In particular, this research examined to what extent fathers actually pay court-ordered child support to mothers, and to what extent mothers actually support and encourage court-ordered child visitation with the fathers. At the same time, this paper reviews currently available research to examine the effects of child development in the absence of fathers. Finally, this paper offers recommendations for mothers, the family court system and legislative bodies.

Family Courts, Social Services and Child Protective Services

In the State of South Carolina, the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) within the Department of Social Services, as part of state law, requires that if a non-custodial parent accumulates child support arrearages of between $150.00 and $1000.00, he is subject to: (1) License Revocation, whereas “any driver’s, occupational, professional, business or commercial license” issued by the state “is subject to being suspended or revoked,” (2) Federal Income Tax Refund Offset, whereas, his Federal and State Income Tax Refunds are “subject to being intercepted to pay child support,” (3) Unemployment Insurance Benefits Intercept, whereas any unemployment benefits received by the non-custodial parent are subject to interception, (4) Passport Denial Revocation or Restriction, and (5) Administrative Lien, whereas, any asset, real or personal, is subject to seizure, including bank accounts, land and automobiles (SCDSS, 2011a).

The difference between child support cases in South Carolina involving Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) and those not involving TANF is significant. In fiscal year 2010, the total number of child support cases was 232,650, of which 196,995 were non-TANF child support cases and only 35,655 were TANF child support cases (SCDSS, 1011b). The number of non-TANF cases was over five-and-one-half times that of TANF cases.

The CSED notes that it “does not have the authority to address custody and visitation issues on behalf of either parent” and that it can “only assist in the establishment of paternity and the establishment and enforcement of a child support order” (SCDSS, 2011c) (emphasis added). It is important to note the prominence of the South Carolina’s “Child Support Enforcement Division” and lack of a state “Child Visitation Enforcement Division.” As such, there is a finite agency to ensure that custodial parents (most often mothers) receive court-ordered child support, but there is no agency whatever to ensure that non-custodial parents (most often fathers) receive court-ordered child visitation. As well documented in this paper, this has an overwhelmingly devastating effect on fathers and seriously undermines the best interests of children in the state.

As a caveat, the CSED does acknowledge the importance of child “visitation” and offers a “pilot program” to help non-custodial parents address visitation issues, but the agency makes clear that its focus is “making sure the non-custodial parent lives up to his/her financial responsibility in raising the child” (ibid).

What fathers bring to the table

Children from single-parent and step-family homes have lower educational expectations, less monitoring and supervision from parents than children from intact homes, and lower scores on standardized tests and overall grades in school (Manning & Lamb, 2003; Sun & Li, 2011). Even children from adoptive homes have higher levels of parental involvement in school than those from single-parent and step-families (Zill, et al, 1993).

Children with involved fathers enjoy school more, get more “A’s,” participate in more extracurricular activities and get suspended less than children whose fathers are not involved (Nord, et al, 1997). Only 11.6% of children from intact homes have had to repeat at least one grade in school, compared to 21.5% of those living with a divorced mother and 29.7% of those living with a never-married mother (Dawson, 1991). Those from two-parent homes are twice as likely to graduate from high school, even when taking into account race, socioeconomic status, and other factors (Luster & Mcadoo, 1994) and 20 times as likely to attend college (Wallerstein, 1986).

The children of a never-married mother are more likely to be treated for emotional/behavioral problems (Hanson, et al, 1996; Phares & Lum, 1997; Popenoe, 1993; McNeely, 1998), and, except for those at the highest income levels, are almost twice as likely to suffer school suspension and expulsion (McNeely, ibid), with over 15% of children living with never-married mothers and almost 11% of children from divorced parents having been expelled or suspended (Dawson, ibid). Among children living with both biological parents the rate is only 4.4% (ibid).

Poor school performance and troublesome behavior seem to be especially problematic for black children living in single-parent homes, and these children score significantly lower on intellectual ability tests than black children from two-parent homes (Luster & Mcadoo, ibid).

Among all identifiable family designations in today’s society (intact families, stepfamilies, single mothers, adopted parents, single fathers, grandparent-headed households, etc.), 49% of all child abuse is committed by single mothers (Ditson & Shay, 1984).

Being raised in a female-headed or broken home surpasses even race, poverty level, and parent education as a predictor of emotional distress, behavioral problems and receiving psychiatric help by the ages of 18 to 22 (Duncan, et al, 1994; Zill, et al, ibid). The rate of adolescent psychiatric patients who came from fatherless homes is as high as 80% (Block, 1988).

Compared to children raised in intact families, the children of divorced or never-married mothers are less cooperative and score lower on intelligence tests (Duncan, et al, ibid). Boys are more likely to be incarcerated as delinquents and to display worse conduct during their incarceration (Marshall, et al, 2001; Matlock, et al, 1994).

Children from fatherless homes suffer disproportionately from a variety of psychological disorders as compared to those from intact families (Brent, 1995) and are much more likely to exhibit violent, aggressive, and criminal behavior (Vaden-Kierman, et al, 1995). They represent over 70% of all high school dropouts, have higher rates of mental illness, violence and alcohol and drug use (Berman 1995; Duncan, et al, ibid) and engage in greater and even earlier sexual activity (Metzler, et al, 1994).

They make up about 63% of youth suicides (Brent, et al, 1995), 60-80% of rapists and 72% adolescent murders (Cornell, et al, 1987; Davidson, 1990; McNeely, ibid), and represent 70-85% of youths in state prisons (Cornell, et al, ibid; Knight & Prentky, 1987; Wells & Rankin, 1991).

Indeed, crime and burglary levels in a community are more reliably predicted by its level of single-parent households than by its levels of poverty (McNeely, ibid; Smith & Jarjoura, 1988). Baskerville (ibid) notes that a young male’s likelihood of engaging in criminal activity “triples” if he is reared in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.

Fathers contribute significantly to child development (McAdoo, 1993; Yeung, et al, 2001) and tend to spend more time in stimulating, playful, one-on-one interactions, and even “roughhousing” with infants and toddlers than do mothers, which is beneficial to child emotional and social development by helping them learn how to regulate their feelings and behavior. While mothers focus on important “nurturing,” fathers tend to promote independence and stress “achievement,” which helps children deal with external stimuli and exhibit self-control (Neilson, 2011; Rosenberg & Bradford, 2006).

Messner (1989) showed how, as early as just a few months old, children experience “father hunger” when fathers are suddenly and permanently absent from the home, resulting in trouble falling asleep and nightmares.

A number of studies show that the presence of a father in the home correlates strongly with child protection from abuse and neglect (Putnam, 2003; Radhakrishna, et al, 2001). Mothers are about twice as likely to be responsible for overall child maltreatment, with fathers being responsible for about 36.8% and mothers being responsible for over 60% (Rosenberg & Bradford, ibid). Single mothers alone are responsible for about 49% of all child abuse cases (Ditson & Shay, ibid).

It might be argued that mothers may account for more child maltreatment because they are more often granted more expansive custody of children, but this does not explain why children who live with their biological father who has remarried are significantly less likely to be physically or sexually abused than those living with a mother who has remarried or has a live-in boyfriend (Rosenberg & Bradford, ibid). Children living in homes where the biological father is not present are at much greater risk to suffer from child abuse (Halpern-Meeking & Tach, 2008).

Our Changing Views of Fatherhood

McNeely (ibid) gives a detailed chronicle of our changing perspectives on fathers in America. She explains how, in colonial American society, courts were reluctant to intervene in the child-father relationship. This is because children were viewed as the property of fathers because the father owned farmland and needed the children to work the land. As those children “earned” wages, etc., it was the father who was considered the primary provider and caretaker of children.

McNeely traces the first dramatic shift in our perception of fathers to the Industrial Revolution when fathers left the farm and went to work in remote factories, leaving mothers as the primary child caretaker. As she wrote, “the stereotypical images of fathers as familial breadwinners and mothers as domestic caretakers and primary childrearers were born.”

This change in society made its way into the courts and by the 20^th century we saw the introduction of “the tender years doctrine” which presumed that mothers were better suited to care for children simply by virtue of their being female. As McNeely wrote, “The tender years doctrine is not a relevant fact, but an impermissible gender-based preference favoring the mother as custodian of a young child.”  As McNeely added, “by the 1920s, mother-custody preference was firmly rooted in the family court system (ibid).

According to Levit (1996), in recent decades most states have abandoned the legal presumption of favoring mothers in child custody, but so-called “joint custody” laws still seem to prefer mothers as custodians.

In 1975, President Ford created the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). Welfare legislation in 1984 required states to adopt child support guidelines in hopes that it would allow mothers to get off of welfare if fathers paid more child support. Unfortunately, the fathers of children whose mothers were on welfare were either unemployed or unemployable, so child support from these fathers did not materialize, to much of a degree. In 1988, child support guidelines were changed to include the fathers of about 80 percent of the child support payers whose children were not on welfare. (Baskerville, 2004).

The US Department of Health and Human Services quotes President Bill Clinton as saying that, “The single biggest social problem in our society may be the growing absence of fathers from their children’s homes, because it contributes to so many other social problems” (DHHS, 2004). This paper shows that this statement is clearly supported by research. Unfortunately, far too many have declared that fathers are “abandoning” their children, which is far from accurate. Research shows that it is not fathers’ behavior which is causing fatherless children, but rather the behavior of mothers and the family courts.

Mothers and Custody

In 2002, Fields (2003) showed that 69% of all children in the U.S. lived with two parents, 23% lived with their mother only, 5% lived with their father only and 3% lived with neither parent and noted that almost as many children live with neither parent as live with their father only.

About 80% of all custodial parents are mothers, leaving fathers to make up only about 20% (Fields, ibid). McNeely (ibid) blamed this disproportion on the “stereotypical” belief that mothers are the best primary caregivers. Braver, et al (1991) showed that this stereotype granted mothers undue influence over children’s lives because; (1) it guaranteed them child support payments from the father, (2) there is typically no oversight as to how those payments are spent, and (3) mothers enjoy more time with children than do fathers. These three factors grant mothers “exacerbated power” and influence in regards to child development, including education, religious, and medical decisions (ibid).

About two-thirds (66%) of divorces in the United States are filed by the wife (Brinig & Allen, 2002). When children are involved, women are “more” prone to petition for divorce and men are “less” prone to petition for divorce. Both former husbands and former wives report that it was most often the wife who petitioned for divorce. After divorce, it is most common that “contact” between children and fathers diminishes dramatically (Braver, et al, 1991; Dudley, 1991; Furstenberg, et al, 1983; Furstenberg, et al, 1987; Nielson, 2011).

Even during divorce proceedings, many fathers are reluctant to seek Shared Parenting because of preconceived notions, which include that they feel like (1) they cannot afford a lengthy legal battle, (2) do not want to put their children through such a battle, and (3) they enter the court with little bargaining power and will lose a judgment anyway. In addition, attorneys often warn fathers of these points (Nielson, 2011).

Fathers and Child Support

About 58% of all non-custodial parents live below the poverty line (DHHS, 2000; Ewing, 1995; Waller & Plotnick, 1999). It is estimated that about 66% of fathers who are behind on child support are simply unable to pay (Baskerville, 2004; McNeely, ibid).

Under current child support guidelines, because custodial parents (primarily mothers) benefit through government programs, a custodial mother who is receiving child support from a non-custodial father could have a higher standard of living than the father, even if the father had a higher level of income. This presents as an ironic twist to the concept that each parent has an equal responsibility (proportionate to their income) to support their children (Rogers, 2000; Baskerville, 2004). In addition, Ewing (1995) finds that, in almost all cases, there is no accountability for child support payments, which creates a “disincentive” for payment.

Mitchell (1995) notes the overall irony in child support payments in that they are intended to set women “free” from the bonds of marriage, but simultaneously “expects, permits, and maintains the outdated role of women as the weaker and dependent sex.”

Sonenstein (2002) notes the irony in that custodial mothers are provided a wealth of government services (housing, employment, food stamps, child support enforcement services, etc.) for which non-custodial fathers would not be eligible, and adds that, “it is important to note that similar biases may also exist within family courts, among judges as well as attorney” but “no research studies were found on this topic.”

At least until recently, there were “no published studies on the extent of
non-custodial fathers’ involvement in caseplanning” (ibid) and social services and child protective services workers have had little or no training on involving fathers in case planning (ibid; Greif & Bailey, 1990), workers typical focused more on mothers (Lazar, et al, 1991), and often neglected to consider birth fathers during child placement (Featherstone, 2001; Franck, 2001). Ronsenberg & Bradford (ibid) acknowledge that “working with fathers in social services is relatively new” and that the first national gathering held solely to include “fathers” didn’t occur until 1994.

Biological fathers who are not married to or living with the biological mothers of their children are more likely to have a “stabilizing female influence” in the household more often that the biological mother is likely to have a stabilizing male influence in the home (Greif & Zuravin, 1989; Sonenstein, ibid).

Much of the record of Family Courts is non-existent and there is little or no data to review Family Court decisions. As Judge Page, Presiding Judge of the Family Part of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is quoted, “the family court is the most powerful branch of the judiciary… the power of family courts judges is almost unlimited” (Baskerville, 2004).

Visitational Interference

An overwhelming 75-90% of unwed fathers of newborns are “very involved” with their newborns (Johnson, 2001) but that high involvement tapers off quickly after birth (Sonenstein, et al, ibid; Fagan & Palkovitz, ibid). Among children living in single-mother homes, as many as 35% never see their fathers and 24% see their father only once per month (Seltzer, 1988a; ibid 1988b). Overall, conventional parenting plans only allow children to live with their fathers about 15% of the time (Nielson (2011).

A number of studies show that the relationship between the mother and father can adversely affect child-father relationship (Ahrons, et al, 1993; Minton & Pasley, 1996; Selzter, 1998a; Selzter 1998b). According to Parents’ Fair Share (the first ‘national demonstration project’ aimed at addressing child support payments, employment and involvement of noncustodial fathers of children receiving welfare), non-custodial fathers are very often frustrated by visitation interference by custodial mothers (Miller & Knox, 2001).

As many as 40-50% of custodial mothers admit to interfering with father visitation in order to “punish” the father (Arditti, ibid; Braver et al, ibid) and fathers themselves also blame “the court’s failure to enforce or expand visitation agreements” (Dudley, ibid).

Seventy percent of fathers feel like they have too little time with their children and “very few” children are satisfied with the amount of contact they have with their fathers (Fabricus, 2003; Kock & Lowery, 1984).

The growing popularity of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is worthy of note. In short, this syndrome occurs when one parent attempts to “alienate” the children from the other parent. This can happen by constantly “browbeating” the children with degradations of the “target” parent to the point where the children become afraid to disagree with the “alienating” parent. As a self-preservation response, the children agree with the alienating parent and even begin to degrade the targeted parent themselves (Walsh, et al, 2004). As Dutton, et al, (2009) note, while the American Psychological Association has no official position on Parental Alienation Syndrome, the syndrome itself is referenced in no less than 250 referenced works in the PsycINFO database, including almost 250 peer-reviewed academic journals.

Both men and women favor shared parenting (Braver et al, 2011) and those children who enjoy the benefit of “shared parenting” rate equally or better in psychological, academic, behavioral, and social well-being compared to those in traditional post-divorce custody (Aquilino, 2010; Breivik & Olweus, 2006; Scott, et al, 2007; Lee, 2002; Melli & Brown, 2008).

Conclusion

This paper suggests that legislatures and Family Courts have not adequately kept up with the drastic changes in family dynamics in recent decades. As McNeely (ibid) insists, the current Family Court system “denies the capability and desire” of fathers to participate in their children’s lives.

The evidence strongly suggests that there is a clear anti-male bias in Family Courts because women receive custody of children in overwhelming numbers, which also grants them court orders of child support payments from fathers. While fathers are granted child “visitation,” that visitation is typically only a few days per month, allowing mothers disproportionately more time with the children.

Still further, South Carolina’s Child Support Enforcement Division ensures that child support payments are collected for mothers (with the threat of jail for fathers who don’t pay, even if they can’t pay) and there is no parallel, equitable agency to ensure that mothers abide by court-ordered visitation rules and regulations. All of these factors grant mothers significant power and control over their children which, by definition, significantly reduces the power and influence that fathers have in child development and decision-making.

This paper suggests that the “deadbeat dad” moniker is misleading and dismisses many of the important factors involved in what are very-nuanced non-marital and post-divorce child custody, support and visitation considerations. It furthers suggests that it is not fathers who are “abandoning” their children, it is rather mothers, Child Support Services and Family Court systems, who systematically strip fathers of the ability and opportunity to provide for their children.

Lastly, this paper shows that biological fathers do indeed present as very important factors in child development, whether married, separated, divorced or non-marital, and seriously questions the assumptions that the mother is the “better” parent. This paper suggests that separating fathers from their children, by denying them equitable access and decision-making, has had devastating effects on child development, to include school performance, behavioral and psychological problems, truancy, delinquency, suicide, murder and imprisonment – all of which are creating havoc in society. The currently available research shows that “fatherlessness” surpasses even poverty levels and race as a determining factor of these social ills.

Recommendations

There are many areas where South Carolina has caused, and continues to cause, detrimental harm to our children, and society as a whole.

This paper strongly suggests that the state legislature should seriously take up the issue of Shared Parenting so that the very important influence of fathers might be included in non-marital and post-divorce families.

With Shared Parenting, as both fathers and mothers provide equally to child development and financial arrangements, both parents (particularly if low-income) should have equal right to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and AFDC benefits.

The state legislature and Family Courts should do away with the “tender years” mentality  which has spawned the outdated notion that mothers are the “superior parent” and replace it with Shared Parenting, which presumes that both parents have an equally fundamental right to parent their children.

With a sincere implementation of Shared Parenting, both “visitation” and “child support” should become terms of the past. If both parents share equally in child rearing and support, child support payments should be eliminated, as long as the child’s basic needs are being met.

In those cases where child support payments might be necessary, the legislature should implement easier means for low-income fathers to adjust payments during times of economic downturn or job layoff. In addition, “in kind” payments should receive the same credit as other payments. Denial of these types of payments cause low-income fathers to incur debt when they give custodial mothers cash, diapers, or other gifts she may need in a hurry. Denying credit of these payments may serve as disincentive to pay regular child support.

Family Court judges should recognize the important role fathers play in child development and grant fathers an equitable representation and treatment during family court cases. The legislature should require Family Courts to provide statistical information on court decisions so that child placement and other decisions are subject to audit and review.

Social Service and Child Protective Service agencies should implement serious training to ensure that workers do not engage in anti-male bias when making child placement, custody, and well-being decisions.

Finally, Mothers should be honest in recognizing that, as women, they have themselves been subjected to sexism and disenfranchisement in the past, and they should acknowledge the travesty of using the Family Court system to disenfranchise fathers. They should further recognize the dishonesty of proclaiming the right to social equality with men while simultaneously demanding that women are better parents than men, and that men support them financially with child support payments. Mothers should recognize that disrupting important child-father relationship and bonding is seriously detrimental to child development.

References

1. Ahrons, C. R. & Miller, R. B. (1993). The effect of the postdivorce relationship on paternal involvement: A longitudinal analysis. In American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 63 (3), pp. 441-450, July 1993. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1037/h0079446/abstract.

2. Aquilino, W. S. (2006). The noncustodial father-child relationship from adolescence into young adulthood. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 68 (4), Nov. 2006, pp. 929-946. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00305.x/abstract.

3. Arditti, J. A. (1992). Factors relating to custody, visitation, and child support for divorced fathers: An exploratory analysis. In Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17 (3-4), pp. 23-42.Retrievable from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J087v17n03_02?prevSearch=arditti&searchHistoryKey=.

4. Baskerville, S. (2002). The politics of fatherhood. In PS:
   Political Science and Politics, 35 (4), December, 2002, pp. 695-699. Retrievable from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1554812.

5. Baskerville, S. (2004). The fatherhood crisis; Time
   for a new look? National Center for Policy Analysis, NCPA Report No. 267, June 2004. Retrievable from http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st267.

6. Berman, D. S. (1995). Risk factors leading to adolescent substance abuse. In Adolescence, 30, Spring, 1995.Retrievable from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n117_v30/ai_20870825/?tag=content;col1

7. Block, J., Block, J. H. & Gjerde, P. (1988). Parental functioning and the home environment in families of divorce: Prsopective and concurrent analyses. In Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (2), pp. 207-213, March 1988.

8. Braver, S. H., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., Fogas, B.S., & Zvetina, D. (1991). Frequency of visitation by divorced fathers: Differences in reports by fathers and mothers. In American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61 (3), pp. 448-454, July 1991. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1037/h0079260/abstract.

9. Braver, S. L. (2011). Lay judgments about child custody after divorce. In Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17 (2), May 2011, pp. 212-240etrievable from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/law/17/2/212/.

10. Brent, D. A., et al. (1995). Post-traumatic stress disorder in peers of adolescent suicide victims; Predisposing factors and phenomenology. In Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34 (2), pp. 209-215, Feb. 1995.

11. Breivik, K. & Olweus, D. (2006). Adolescents’ adjustment in four post-divorce family structures: Single mother, stepfather, joint physical custody and single father families. In Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44 93-4), pp. 99-124.Retrievable at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J087v44n03_07.

12. Brinig, M. F. & Allen, D. W. (2002). These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women. In American Law and Economics Review, 2 (1), pp. 376-379. Retrievable from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=874207## or http://www.unc.edu/courses/2010fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf.

13. Cornell, D. G., Benedek, E. P. & Benedek, D. M. (1987) Characteristics of adolescents charged with homicide. In Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5 (1), pp. 11-23, Winter, 1987. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.2370050103/abstract.

14. Davidson, N. (1990). Life without father. In Policy
    Review, 51 (4), Winter, 1990.

15. Dawson, D. (1991). Family structure and children’s well-being. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 53 (3), August, 1991. Retrievable from http://www.jstor.org/pss/352734.

16. DHHS (2000). The establishment of child support orders non-custodial parents. Department Health and Human Services,Office of the Inspector General, July 2000. Retrievable at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-99-00390.pdf.

17. DHHS (2004). Building blocks for father involvement. Youth and Families Head Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, p. 4. Retrievable from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/family/Family%20and%20Community%20Partnerships/New%20Parental%20Involvement/Fatherhood/building_blocks1.pdf.

18. Ditson, J. & Shay, S. (1984). A study of child abuse in Lansing, Michigan. In Child Abuse and Neglect, 8.

19. Dudley, J. R. (1991). Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children. In Family
    Relations, 4 (3), p. 281, July, 1991. Retrievable from http://www.jstor.org/pss/585012.

20. Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S.C. & Hops, H. (1994). The effects of family cohesiveness and peer encouragement on the development of adolescent alcohol use: A cohort=sequential approach to the analysis of longitudinal data. In Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55 (5), Sept., 1994. Retrievable from http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/The_Effects_of_Family_Cohesiveness_and_Peer_Encouragement_on_the_Developmen/2057.html.

21. Dutton, D. G., Corvo, K. N., & Hamel, J. (2009). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and practice, part II: The information website of the American Bar Association. In Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, pp. 30-38. Retrievable at http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON-D.G.-CORVO-K.N.-HAMEL-J.-2009.-THE-GENGER-PARADIGM-IN-DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-RESEARCH-AND-PRACTICE-PART-II-THE-INFORMATION-WEBSITE-OF-THE-AMERICAN-BAR-ASSOCIATION..pdf.

22. Ewing L.C. (1995). Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee of Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, February 6, 1995. Retrievableat http://members.peak.org/~jedwards/crc.htm.

23. Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Listening to children of divorce: New findings that diverge from Wallerstein, Lewis and Blakeslee. In Family Relations, 52 (4), pp. 385-396. Retrievable from http://library.softgenx.com/Children/shared/Fabricius.pdf.

24. Fagan, J. & Palkovitz, R. (2011). Coparenting and relationship quality effects on father engagement: Variations by residence, romance. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 73 (3), pp. 637 – 653, June 2011. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00834.x/abstract.

25. Featherstone, B. (2001). Putting fathers on the child welfare agenda: Research Review. In Child and Family Social Work, 6 (2), pp. 179-186. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2001.00195.x/abstract.

26. Ferstenburg, F. F., Jr., Morgan, S. P., & Allison, P. D. (1987). Paternal participation and children’s well-being after marital dissolution. In American Sociological Review, 52: pp. 511-518. Retrievable online from http://www.jstor.org/pss/2095604.

27. Ferstenburg, F. F., Jr., Nord, C. W., Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1983). The life course of children of divorce. In American
    Sociological Review, 8, pp. 656-668. Retrievable from http://www.jstor.org/pss/2094925.

28. Fields, J. (2003). Children’s living arrangements.Population Characteristics. June 2003. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrievable from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-547.pdf.Finley, G.E., & Schwartz, S. J (2007). Father involvement and long-term young adult outcomes: The differential contributions of divorce and gender. In Family Court Review, 45 (4), October2007, pp. 573-587. Retrievable from http://sethschwartz.info/pdfs/Divorce-Outcomes%20Paper.pdf.

29. Franck, E. J. (2001). Outreach to birthfathers of children in out-of-home care. In Child Welfare, 80 (3), pp. 381-399,May-June, 2001. Retrievable from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11380047.

30. Greif, J. L. and Bailey, C. (1990). Where are the fathers in social work literature? In Families in Society: The Journal of
    Contemporary Human Services, 71 (2), pp. 88-92. Retrievable from http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/profile.asp?guid=76d40f55-b32c-4bcb-a0c5-5d4b24a69578.

31. Greif, J. L. & S. J. Zuravin (1989). Fathers: A placement resource for abused and neglected children? In Child Welfare, 68 (5), pp. 479-490, Sept-Oct, 1989. Retrievable from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ396984&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ396984.

32. Halpern-Meeking, S. & Tach, L. (2008). Heterogeneity in two-parent families and adolescent well-being. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 (2), pp. 435-451, May 2008. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00492.x/abstract.

33. Hanson, T. L., McLanahan, S., & Thomson, E. (1996). Double jeopardy: parental conflict and step-family outcomes for children. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 58:141-154. Retrievable from http://www.jstor.org/pss/353383.

34. Johnson, W. E. (2001). Paternal involvement among unwed fathers. In Child and Youth Services Review, 23 (6/7), pp. 513-536. Retrievable from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740901001463.

35. Knight, R. A. & Prentky, R. A. (1987). The developmental antecedents and adult adaptations of rapist subtypes. In Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, pp. 403-426. Retrievable from http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/14/4/403.short.

36. Kock, M. A. & Lowery, C. (1984). Visitation and the noncustodial father. In Journal of Divorce, 8 (2), p. 54, Winter, 1984. Retrievable from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J279v08n02_04.

37. Lazar, A., Sagi, A., and Fraser, M. W. (1991). Involving fathers in social services. In Children and Youth Services Review,13 (4), pp. 287 – 300. Retrievable from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-02965-001.

38. Lee, M. (2002). A Model of children’s postdivorce behavioral adjustment in maternal- and dual-residence arrangements. In Journal of Family Issues, 23 (5), July 2002, pp. 672-697. Retrievable online at http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/23/5/672.abstract.

39. Levit, N. (1996). Feminism for men: Legal ideology and the construction of maleness. In UCLA Law Review, 43 (4), pp.1037-1116. Retrievable online at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=nancy_levit&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfeminism%2520for%2520men%2520legal%2520ideology%2520and%2520the%2520construction%2520of%2520maleness%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CCUQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fworks.bepress.com%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1016%2526context%253Dnancy_levit%26ei%3DBdkBT7HUGIKWtwesmaicBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNEcRv7ENGQ9hFZKM8votJ-yi3u0kQ#search=%22feminism%20men%20legal%20ideology%20construction%20maleness%22.

40. Luster, T. & McAdoo, H. P. (1994). Factors related to the achievement and adjustment of young African-American children. In Child Development, 65, pp. 1080-1094. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00804.x/abstract.

41. Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families. In Journal of
    Marriage and Family, 65 (4), pp. 876 – 893, Nov 2003. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x/abstract.

42. Marshall, D. B., English, D.J., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). The effect of fathers or father figures on child behavioral problems in families referred to child protective services. Child Maltreatment, 6(4), 290–299. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00804.x/abstract.

43. Matlock, M. E., et al (1994). Family correlates of social skills. In Adolescence, 29.

44. McAdoo, J. L. (1993). The roles of African American fathers; An ecological perspective. In Families in Society; The Journal of
    Contemporary Human Services, 74 (1), pp. 28-35. Retrievable from http://www.familiesinsociety.org/ShowDOIAbstract.asp?docid=1450.

45. McNeely, C.A. (1998) Lagging behind the times: Parenthood, custody, and gender bias in the family court. In Florida State Law Review, Vol. 25, pp. 891-956. Retrievable at http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/254/mcneely.pdf.

46. Melli,M. S. & Brown, P. R. (2008). Exploring a new family form: The shared time family. In International Journal of Law,
    Policy and Family, 22 (2), pp. 231-269. Retrievable from http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/2/231.abstract.

47. Messer, A. A. (1989). Boys father hunger: The missing father syndrome. In Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, January, 1989.

48. Metzler, C.W. et al (1994). The social context for risky sexual behavior among adolescents. In Journal of Behavioral
    Medicine, 17 (4), pp. 419-438. Retrievable from http://www.springerlink.com/content/hp731681m7215135/.

49. Miller, C. & Knox, V. (2001). The challenge
    of helping low-income fathers support their children: Final lessons from parents’ fair share. Parents’ Fair Share, Manpower Demonstration Research Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2012 from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/104/overview.html.

50. Minton, C. & Pasley, K. (1996). Fathers’ parenting role identity and father involvement: A comparison of nondivorced and divorced, nonresident fathers. In Journal of Family Issues, 17 (1), pp. 26-45. Retrievable from http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/17/1/26.abstract.

51. Mitchell, A. (1995). Speech delivered to the 1995 Convention of the National Congress of Fathers and Children. Retrievable at http://www.vix.com/free/testimony/ncfcspeech.html.

52. Nelisen, L. (2011). Shared parenting after divorce: A review of shared parenting residential parenting research. In Journal
    of Divorce & Remarriage, 52, pp, 586-609. Retrievable from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10502556.2011.619913.

53. Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Father’s involvement in their children’s schools (NCES 98-09). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, national Center for Education Statistics, ED 409, 125. Retrievable from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98091.pdf.

54. Phares, V. & Lum, J. J. (1997). Clinically referred children and adolescents: Fathers, family constellations, and other demographic factors. In Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(2), 216-223. Retrievable from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9169382.

55. Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960-1990: A review and appraisal. In Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(3), pp. 527-542, Aug 1993. Retrievable from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ473950&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ473950.

56. Putman, F. W.(2003). Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse. In Journal of the American Academy of Child and
    Adolescent Psychiatry, 42 (3), 269–278, Mar 2003. Retrievable from http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(09)60559-1/abstract.

57. Radhakrishna, A., Bou-Saada, I., Hunter, W., Catellier, D. & Kotch, J. (2001). Are father surrogates a risk factor for child maltreatment. In Child Maltreatment, 6 (4), pp. 281-289. Retrievable from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11675811.

58. Rogers, R. M. (2000). Wisconsin-style and income shares child support guidelines: Excessive burdens and flawed economic foundation. In Family Law Quarterly, 33 (1), p. 135, Spring, 1999.

59. Rosenberg, J. & Bradford, W. W. (2006). The importance of fathers in the healthy development of children. Child abuseand neglect user manual series. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect. Retrievable at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/.

60. SCDSS (2011a). Enforcement remedies. South Carolina Department of Social Services, Child Support Enforcement Division. Retrieved December 29, 2011from http://www.state.sc.us/dss/csed/enforce.htm.

61. SCDSS (2001b). Child support statistics. South Cartolina Department of Social Services, Child Support Enforcement Division. Retrieved December 29, 2011 from SC Statsretrievable from http://www.state.sc.us/dss/csed/stats.htm.

62. SCDSSc (2011c). Custody and visitation. Retrieved December 29, 2011 from http://www.state.sc.us/dss/csed/vip.htm.

63. Scott, M. E., Booth, A., King, V. Johnson, D. R. (2007). Post-divorce father-adolescent closeness. In Marriage
    & Family, 69 (5), Dec. 2007, pp. 1194-1209. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00441.x/abstract.

64. Seltzer, J. A. (1998a). Father by law: Effects of joint legal custody on nonresident fathers’ involvement with children. In Demography, 35 (2), pp. 135-146. Retrievable from http://www.jstor.org/pss/3004047.

65. Sellzer, J. A. (1998b). Children’s Contact with Absent Parents. In Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50 (1988).

66. Smith, D.A. & Jarjoura, G. R. (1988). Social structure and criminal victimization. In Journal of Research in Crime and
    Delinquency, 25 (1), pp. 27-52. Retrievable from http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/25/1/27.short.

67. Sorensen, E. & Zibman, C. (2000). To what extent do children benefit from child support? University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrievable from http://www.urban.org/publications/309299.html.

68. Sonenstein, F., Malm, K. & Billing, A. (2002). Literature
    review: Study of fathers’ involvement in permanency planning and child welfare. Prepared under contract to the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrievable from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CW-dads02/.

69. Sun, Y. & Li, Y. (2011). Effects of family structure type and stability on children’s academic performance trajectories. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 73 (3), pp. 541-556, June 2011.Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00825.x/abstract.

70. Vaden-Kierman, N, Ialongo, J. & Kellam, S. (1995). Household family structure and children’s aggressive behavior: A longitudinal study of urban elementary school children.In Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,23 (5), pp. 553-568. Retrievable from http://www.mendeley.com/research/household-family-structure-childrens-aggressive-behavior-longitudinal-study-urban-elementary-school-children/.

71. Waller, M. &  Plotnick. R. (1999). Child support and low-income families: Deadbeat dads or policy mismatch: Research Brief. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco. Full report retrievable at http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1199MWRB.pdf.

72. Wallerstein, J. & Tanke, T. J. (1986). To move or not to move: Psychological and legal considerations in the relocation of children following divorce. In Family Law Quarterly, 30 (2), Summer, 1996,

73. Walsh, M.R. & None, M. (1999). Parental alienation syndrome. An age old custody problem. In Florida Bar Journal, Mar., 1999, Vol. LXXIII, No. 3. Retrievable athttp://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/Articles/23A5F386D1B046EE85256ADB005D6248.

74. Wells, L. E. & Rankin, J. H. (1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of the impact of broken homes. In Social
    Problems, 38 (1), Feb 1991. Retrievable from http://www.jstor.org/pss/800639.

75. Yeung, W. J., Sandberg, J. F., Davis-Kean, P. E., Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Children’s time with fathers in intact families. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (1), pp. 136-154, Feb 2001. Retrievable from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00136.x/abstract;jsessionid=38F0F2B1F96EBBE7A4F52B2AA6589689.d02t01.

76. Zill, N., Morrison, D. & Coiro, M. J. (1993). Long term effects of parental divorce on parent-child relationships, adjustment and achievement in young adulthood. In Journal of Family
    Psychology, 7 (1), June 1993, pp. 91-103. Retrievable from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1994-01475-001.