Category: NPO in the media

May 4, 2009

I’m quoted on dads as primary caregivers in nationally-syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon’s new column Harried, with Children. Alkon, whose columns appear in 100 newspapers, begins with a letter from “Stay-Late-At-Work Dad,” who writes:

Women complain about how hard it is being a stay-at-home mom. After getting divorced, I discovered I could clean the entire house in a few hours…Men work long hours to support their families, only to be told they aren’t doing enough around the house. I think being a mom is important and value stay-at-home moms, but let’s talk turkey about who really has the hard job, okay?

Alkon responds:

Since I describe myself as “BARREN!” I sought informed opinions about the difficulty of the mom portion of the stay-at-homer’s chore chart.

“People in general seem convinced that stay-at-home moms get a raw deal and work much harder than breadwinner dads,” said Glenn Sacks, executive director of Fathers & Families. “Having been a stay-at-home dad with two kids during the years when they need the most intensive care, I can tell you that this is nonsense.”

And no, he didn’t just jam a bottle in the baby’s mouth and turn on the ballgame. “Even though I’m just a guy,” Sacks said, “I actually figured out how to get my daughter in the car and get her to her doctor appointment.”

As readers know, many years ago I had the rare and wonderful opportunity to be a stay-at-home dad with my baby daughter and my son for three years. I worked in the evenings and was with my daughter from 6 AM to 5 PM from the time she was 6 weeks old until she went to preschool at age 3. I’ll refer the small minority of readers who want to hear me babble on about my daughter to my column An Ode to My Daughter on Her 10th Birthday (World Net Daily, 6/14/08).

Back to Alkon:

Stay-at-home moms, on the other hand, aren’t saying “If only I had a nice cushy job like ditch-digging” What those I spoke with find hardest is only having the company of a 3-year-old all day, a companion whose intellectual interests are limited to answering questions like “How many fingers is this?” and “What does the cow say?” (Mommy somehow avoids throwing herself on the floor and screaming, “The cow says, I went to Yale for this?! I went to Yale for this?!'”).

I do agree with the women quoted above that being alone in the company of a small child can be boring. I suppose my problem was that I was so in love with my little girl that just looking at her and being with her was always sweet. Plus, she and I used to do a lot together–we’d go for bike rides and to the park, go to Home Depot and the store, etc.

I suppose one thing that made it different for me was that I never expected to have this opportunity, knew it would be short, and thus savored it, instead of seeing it as a burden or as limiting.

Alkon continues:

Women love their children, but an increasing number seem to hate being mothers like never before. It doesn’t help that many are perfectionist in a way men generally aren’t, like with a housecleaning regime right out of Joan Crawford’s crazy scene in the bathroom in “Mommie Dearest.” They’ll beg their husband to pitch in, and when he does, screech that he’s doing it “wrong.” Well, ladies, if you absolutely, positively must have it your way, there’s a single best person to accomplish that.

I agree completely, and the above is a major cause of household conflict and divorce.

Read Alkon’s full column at the Orange County Register website here. Also, write to the Orange County Register and tell them you enjoy Amy’s column by clicking on Life@OCRegister.com.

Amy’s column can be seen weekly here.

April 13, 2009

Dr. Ned Holstein discussed Fathers & Families‘ highly-publicized lawsuit against Massachusetts’ child support guidelines and the problems faced by child support obligors during the recession on the Tom and Todd Morning Show on WRKO AM 680 in Boston (4/13/09).

To listen to the audio of the show, click here.

April 13, 2009

Fathers & Families‘ Dr. Ned Holstein discussed the problems faced by child support obligors during the recession on CBS Radio today (4/13/09).

The interview was prompted by a new front page Boston Globe story discussing this issue and Fathers & Families‘ highly-publicized lawsuit against Massachusetts’ child support guidelines. To learn more, click here.

Holstein told CBS:

Courts need to start treating fathers like human beings, not ATM machines. Most fathers love their children dearly and want to support them, but everybody has economic ups and downs. When fathers suffer financial reverses, they need to be treated fairly.

Holstein said that four things need to be done:

1) Make child support orders reasonable in the first place.

2) Modify child support quickly when there is a job loss or major decrease in income.

3) Stop jailing fathers who are simply unable to pay.

4) Fathers who lose their jobs or suffer a major loss of income need to file for downward modifications as soon as possible.

March 16, 2009

Fathers & Families‘ Dr. Ned Holstein discussed a bill regarding domestic violence restraining orders on The Ron Smith Show on WBAL AM 1090 in Baltimore on Wednesday.

A recent vote in the Maryland House of Delegates upheld by a narrow margin a law that keeps recipients of Temporary Restraining Orders in a computer registry even though a judge has dismissed or denied the TRO.

Holstein explained the effects of the law–people who had been cleared are being denied jobs and/or housing because they’re being kept in the computer registry.

From the Baltimore Sun’s Delegate shares personal story of domestic abuse (3/11/09):

Delegate Luiz R.S. Simmons, a Montgomery County Democrat and trial attorney, sponsored the bill.

He said that when temporary protective orders, which judge’s grant after hearing only from the accuser, don’t materialize as final orders, it is only fair to wipe away the public record of the court hearings.

“The question before the House is: Innocent until proven guilty – do we believe in it?” Simmons said.

Simmons argued that the civil orders are “the equivalent of criminal records” and can be viewed by potential employers and landlords. Even if removed from public view, Simmons said, police officers and courts would have maintained access to the records. He said it was time for lawmakers to address the problem of false accusations of domestic violence.

Of the more than 17,000 temporary protective orders granted last year in Maryland, about 9,000 were made final, said Del. Joseph F. Vallario, a Democrat representing Calvert and Prince George’s counties and a proponent of Simmons’ bill.

Simmons was 100% correct but the delegates were apparently swayed by Delegate Cheryl D. Glenn’s emotional appeal based on abuse she claimed she suffered at the hands of her deceased husband 30 years ago.

Simmons should be commended–to contact him, click here. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Baltimore Sun, click here.

For additional information on the Bill, see the Washington Post’s Md. Domestic Violence Bill Splits Female Lawmakers (3/15/09). Notice how the article focuses on female legislators’ apparent hesitance to break with their feminist sisters, as opposed to recognizing the appalling number of innocent men who are victimized by the current restraining order system.

To email reporter Rosalind S. Helderman, click here. To write a Letter to the Editor, click here.

March 5, 2009

I discussed Parenting magazine’s new ‘Mad at Dads’ study on the Kathryn Zox Show on WMET AM 1160 in Washington DC yesterday. Kathryn and her co-host Lorin Beller Blake both feel that stay-at-home mothers are put upon and fathers are fortunate to be able to work and “be out there in the real world” instead of staying at home.

To listen to the audio of the show, click here. I come on at 16 minutes in.

I thought the most interesting part of the show was the way Zox and Blake reacted with some disbelief at my feelings about my three years as a stay-at-home dad after my daughter was born (begins at 22 minutes in.)

At some level Zox and Blake seem convinced that stay-at-home moms get a raw deal and work much harder than breadwinner dads. Having been a stay-at-home dad with two kids during the years when they need the most intensive of care, I can tell you that this is nonsense.

Yes, if a stay-at-home mom wants to work herself into a frenzy with obsessive cleaning and activity, she can make the job harder than that of the breadwinner and then turn around and resent her husband for not working as hard as she decides to work. However, if you’re reasonable, the stay-at-home role isn’t harder than the breadwinner role. There’s only one part of being a parent which I’ve ever genuinely disliked and that’s forcing my son through his homework. Then again, every job has its downsides.

More importantly, you have to balance out the work with the reward. Those three years at home with my little girl were the greatest of my life, and she and I developed an exceptionally close bond which exists even now, despite the fact that (against my will) she has grown up.

One of the points that I made on the show is that the kids are only little for a little while, and that it’s important to enjoy them when they’re that age. Too many men have to work long hours to support their families and don’t get to spend enough time with their kids when they’re little–I consider myself to have been exceptionally lucky to have had that time with my kids.

This is particularly true now that they’re growing up–my son is a junior in high school and he doesn’t want to spend time my wife or I, he wants to be with his friends. A few years ago I may have been “G-Dawg” but now in his eyes I’m just (sigh) “Loser G”…

When I brought up the problem of maternal gate keeping on the show, both hosts acknowledged it as a problem. Zox said:

I have a couple girlfriends who really do that. They have to be in control. When they leave their child, their son or daughter with the father, and the father didn’t dress them “right” or they didn’t feed them at the right time or the “right” food. There was always a criticism of how he did it. The father would do it…wanted to do it his own way and then there was all kinds of friction because he didn’t do it [the mothers’] way.

February 25, 2009

I discussed teen singer Chris Brown”s reported assault of singer Rihanna on Rover’s Morning Glory radio show in Cleveland, Memphis and other cities this morning. Rover is very tuned in to men’s and fathers’ issues, while his female co-host Duji is…less so. Rover was very interested in what happens to men who are accused of domestic violence, particularly in relation to divorce/custody. If this is something you have experienced, I suggest you write to him by clicking here. Teen singer Chris Brown”s reported assault of singer Rihanna is being widely depicted as an opportunity for society to learn about domestic violence, particularly teen dating violence. However, much of what the media and misguided women”s advocates are using the incident to teach is faulty. The view that males almost exclusively perpetrate domestic violence, and only females are victims is a severe distortion. For example, the most recent large-scale study of domestic violence was published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2007.

The researchers analyzed data concerning 11,000 respondents. According to the researchers, “[H]alf of [violent relationships] were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.’ I don’t want to prejudge Chris Brown, but from what we know so far, it certainly does not look good. During the show Rover speculated that Rihanna might have hit Chris Brown first because of a phone call he supposedly received. Duji said “So what?” and that Chris still should not have hit her. I think that Duji is half right and half wrong. Certainly I do not think a man should ever hit a woman unless it is absolutely necessary for self-defense. On the other hand, to simply dismiss a woman hitting a man first is outrageous. If what Rover speculates is true, Chris Brown is certainly guilty, but Rihanna is also guilty. Research shows something that is so obvious it should go without saying, except that in our PC/anti-male culture it needs to be said–the best way for a woman to avoid being hit by her male partner is to…not hit her male partner. That certainly won’t solve the whole problem of male-perpetrated domestic violence, but it would solve part of it. The New York Daily News quoted a couple of alleged insiders who said “Rihanna is temperamental, too…They’re both too hot-headed for their own good” and “It didn’t help that Rihanna grabbed the keys out of his rented Lamborghini and threw them down the street. She knew it would really infuriate Chris, and it worked.” This is questionable, of course — I haven’t seen any solid evidence that Rihanna did anything wrong. We also discussed anti-male bias in domestic violence arrest and prosecution policies. Several male callers said that their exes had physically attacked them, in part to provoke a response that could be used to get the man arrested in jailed. One guy said that he was arrested after confronting his ex over an affair she was having. While his story had some unusual details, I see this basic outline all the time — the husband discovers that the wife is having an affair, and the wife then accuses him of domestic violence in order to get them out of the house on a restraining order, push him out of their kids’ lives, and (sometimes) to move her new lover into their home.

February 11, 2009

“[M]en improve their standard of living after a divorce while women sacrifice theirs. This is true in all divorces…”

New York Times writer Lisa Belkin chided Fathers & Families in a recent column, contrasting F & F’s recent child support lawsuit with her view that “men improve their standard of living after a divorce while women sacrifice theirs.”

In Who ‘Wins” in a Divorce, Mom or Dad?, Belkin writes:

Child custody and balance of parenting power post-divorce have been in the news around the world lately. Everywhere it is messy, and everywhere parents seem certain that the other gender is getting the better deal.

In Great Britain, the Institute for Social and Economic Research released a study last month called “Marital Splits and Income Changes Over the Longer Term.’ The first of its kind in the country, it showed what similar studies in the U.S. have concluded over the years — that men improve their standard of living after a divorce while women sacrifice theirs. This is true in all divorces, but particularly striking when the couple has children, because the children are more likely to live with their mothers, who earn less than their ex-husbands and pay more child care expenses…

And over in Massachusetts, new guidelines were adopted on Jan. 1 that will raise the amount paid by non-custodial parents, who are usually fathers. A Boston-based advocacy organization, Fathers & Families, responded with a lawsuit charging that the changes are excessive.

In an article analyzing the changes on the website of Psychology Today, writer Paul Raeburn concludes that in this debate, as in nearly every other surrounding divorce, child support guidelines often seem, to fathers, to be unrealistically high, and to others, unrealistically low.

Dr. Ned Holstein, MD, MS, founder of Fathers & Families, wrote Belkin:

The biggest problem with your blog post is that it is all about money and has nothing to say about the heart. How can you put a value on the de facto loss of children suffered by most divorcing husbands? This does not even enter into your thinking.

As to the money, everyone knows that after a divorce, she lives in the house and he lives in an apartment, or on his sister”s couch. Contrary to your assertion about the uniformity of research results about the money, researcher Sanford Braver concluded a few years ago, “….our results suggest that under current child support guidelines, the majority of custodial parents currently have higher standards of living than their matched non-custodial parents, dramatically so in Massachusetts and Wisconsin.’

The British study about financial wellbeing after divorce to which you link is not from a month ago: it was published in 1997 based on data from 1991-1994. At that time, according to the study authors, few divorced husbands made payments to their ex-wives, and the amounts were small, so the study is not applicable to conditions today in the US.

Other problems with the British study: it assumed that non-custodial parents have no child-related expenses of their own, whereas such expenses are actually quite substantial (housing is the main cost of raising children — almost 40% — and it costs as much to house a child for 6 days per month as it does to house the child for 24 days per month).

Also, poorer men dropped out of follow-up, leaving the post-divorce sample of men weighted towards those who were wealthier and thus made it look as if almost all men do well financially after divorce.

It is very clear who does better after divorce — and it is not the husbands. It is also clear who does worse — the children, who in study after study express sorrow that they do not have more time with their fathers.

I would add that Belkin’s statement “The first of its kind in [Britain] showed what similar studies in the U.S. have concluded over the years — that men improve their standard of living after a divorce while women sacrifice theirs” is actually meaningless. Holstein debunks the British study, and her assertions about America stem from a widely-publicized myth–a now-discredited study conducted over two decades ago by feminist Lenore Weitzman, author of the 1985 book The Divorce Revolution.

Weitzman concluded that women’s standard of living after divorce dropped by three quarters while men’s rose over 40%. The media trumpeted her research–some have called it one of the most widely reported studies in media history–and it led to sharp increases in child support guidelines. However, years later Weitzman was forced to admit that her findings were vastly overstated, due to a huge mathematical error.

Sanford Braver, Ph.D., one of the nation’s leading experts on the economics of divorce, helped uncover and expose the Weitzman hoax. His research demonstrates that when all relevant factors are taken into account, including the numerous tax advantages custodial parents enjoy, the “men gain/women lose” idea is badly in error. In fact, his new research indicates that the opposite outcome may be more common. To learn more about Braver’s research, read a transcript of an interview with him on ABC’s 20/20 here.

To comment on Belkin’s article, click here.

December 18, 2008

Boston, MA–Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of is a central figure in the new Newsweek article Not Your Dad’s Divorce: How changes in child support laws, and a push by fathers for equal time, are transforming the way this generation of ex-spouses raise their children (12/15/08).

The piece’s author, reporter Susanna Schrobsdorff, to her credit, has a shared custody arrangement with her ex-husband. She explains:

 When his parents divorced in the 1970s, they adopted the standard every-other-weekend-with-Dad setup. He remembered missing his father tremendously and didn’t want that for our kids.

According to the article:

Fathers and Families believes [fathers aren’t] getting a fair shake. Dr. Ned Holstein, a public health physician who heads the 4,500-member group, says it represents men who want more time for the right reasons. He attributes the fact that statistics still show that about 85 percent of primary physical custody goes to women to the variety of factors leading fathers to cede custody to mothers…

Why don’t the men who are unhappy with the arrangements they have fight for more time? (Currently about 7 percent of sole custodial parents are men.) Holstein says the legal system deters them. “The lawyers are telling them, ‘You can’t fight this, you won’t get it, and it will cost you a lot of money and heartache.'” While the numbers show that men who do fight for primary custody win as much as women do, Holstein says those cases are self-selecting: “They’ve been told in advance they have a chance at winning because they were Mr. Mom before the divorce-or there’s an obvious problem with the mother.”

Fathers and Families’ Holstein argues that making kids feel at home at Dad’s house is difficult when support payments can eat up as much as 40 percent of his after-tax income. They may have to leave the neighborhood for smaller quarters, leaving children’s friends behind.

To change that, and to give Dads more time and an adjustment in child support according to the new laws, Holstein feels the courts should start with a presumption that there will be joint physical custody. Much of the research on the subject shows that a majority of kids who have grown up in joint physical custody arrangements report that they are satisfied with the way it worked, while kids who grew up in an “every other weekend arrangement” were more likely to be dissatisfied and want more contact with their fathers.

Some of the opposition’s arguments in the article are problematic. For example, Jocelyn Elise Crowley, author of “The Politics of Child Support in America” and “Defiant Dads”, says the problem with linking support payments and time spent with kids is that in some cases it can create a “less than pure incentive for fathers to ask for more time with their children.”

This is a common feminist argument, and one which ignores the obvious converse–if a dad may seek 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it.

Another quote:

Still, joint custody may not be for every family. Paul Amato, a leading researcher on the subject and a professor of sociology at Pennsylvania State University, argues that…forcing uncooperative couples into a joint arrangement could end up creating more parental conflict, which most experts agree is the most damaging part of a divorce for kids. “I do not think it’s a good idea to impose joint physical custody on unwilling parents,” he says. “This strategy is likely to do more harm than good.”

I don’t doubt that this situation isn’t good, but what’s the alternative? In most cases, it’s the mother who doesn’t want to share custody with the father. If you don’t “force” joint custody, what you’re essentially saying is mom gets to have sole custody and dad is pushed to the margins of his kids’ lives. This is what’s known as the “Hostile Parent Veto.”

The full Newsweek article is here. To write a Letter to the Editor, click on Letters@newsweek.com.

September 15, 2008

Los Angeles, CA– “The child support system is asking very poor people  — the fathers  — to support other very poor people  –the mother and child. This has not worked and will not work, because the money just doesn”t exist.

“By pursuing these fathers with an iron fist collection policy, we turn these fathers into fugitives. This takes away the only thing the very poor father has to offer his child: his love and guidance.”

Ned Holstein, Executive Director of Fathers & Families,  recently appeared on CNN Radio to discuss the controversy over child support enforcement agencies seizing economic stimulus checks from “deadbeat dads.” He’s also quoted on this in the recent Associated Press story Stimulus checks boost child support (9/9/08).

Points Holstein made to CNN included:

1) The government’s own research shows that the overwhelming majority of fathers behind on their child support are poor–less than 5% of all child support debtors earn even $40,000 a year.

The child support system is asking very poor people  — the fathers  — to support other very poor people  –the mother and child. This has not worked and will not work, because the money just doesn”t exist. By pursuing these fathers with an iron fist collection policy, we turn these fathers into fugitives. This takes away the only thing the very poor father has to offer his child: his love and guidance.

2) In many of these cases, the alleged “child support” is not going to the mothers and children, but instead to the state to repay the cost of the mothers’ welfare benefits. In other words, poor mothers receive substantial government assistance, but poor fathers receive nothing except the bill.

3) Child support bureaucracies are notorious for their errors and bureaucratic bungling–who knows if the fathers whose checks are being seized even really owe the money? For example, when the State Auditor of Massachusetts examined child support records in that state, it found that the official arrearages were incorrect in 92% of the cases it examined. (Report No. 99-0142-3). The Auditor concluded “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Enforcement and Tracking System (COMETS) does not maintain accurate arrears balances.’

4) The best way to ensure that children are supported and cared for is to respect both parents’ custody rights and parenting time. Research shows that fathers who are able to remain a regular part of their children’s lives voluntarily support their children financially.

September 10, 2008

I recently appeared on CNN Radio to discuss the controversy over child support enforcement agencies seizing economic stimulus checks from “deadbeat dads.” I’m quoted on this in the recent Associated Press story Stimulus checks boost child support (9/9/08).

Points I made to CNN included:

1) The government’s own research shows that the overwhelming majority of fathers behind on their child support are poor–less than 5% of all child support debtors earn even $40,000 a year.

The child support system is asking very poor people  — the fathers  — to support other very poor people  –the mother and child. This has not worked and will not work, because the money just doesn”t exist. By pursuing these fathers with an iron fist collection policy, we turn these fathers into fugitives. This takes away the only thing the very poor father has to offer his child: his love and guidance.

2) In many of these cases, the alleged “child support” is not going to the mothers and children, but instead to the state to repay the cost of the mothers’ welfare benefits. In other words, poor mothers receive substantial government assistance, but poor fathers receive nothing except the bill.

3) Child support bureaucracies are notorious for their errors and bureaucratic bungling–who knows if the fathers whose checks are being seized even really owe the money? For example, when the State Auditor of Massachusetts examined child support records in that state, it found that the official arrearages were incorrect in 92% of the cases it examined. (Report No. 99-0142-3). The Auditor concluded “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Enforcement and Tracking System (COMETS) does not maintain accurate arrears balances.’

4) The best way to ensure that children are supported and cared for is to respect both parents’ custody rights and parenting time. Research shows that fathers who are able to remain a regular part of their children’s lives voluntarily support their children financially.