|
Editorials
|
November 3, 1999 Fatherhood bill angers women's groupBy John Kruger Money included in a bill to help poor fathers become better parents could end up in the hands of fathers' rights groups that have "been fairly extreme" and whose goals "are to remove physical custody from the mother and award custody to the father," according to the National Organization for Women (NOW). The group is at odds with a measure, adopted by a key congressional subcommittee, that would spend $165 million to help poor fathers become better parents. "The money is going to go to groups who have opposed spending money on child support programs," said NOW President Patricia Ireland. "We should be focusing any money on the custodial parent so they can be self-supporting." NOW said it believes the money will most likely go to several fathers' rights groups, including the National Fatherhood Institute and the Children's Rights Council (CRC), among others. The CRC, perhaps most famous for its rankings of the best cities in which to raise a child, advocates joint custody or shared parenting arrangements. Last year, CRC attorney Ron Henry lobbied for an expansion of a similar bill proposed by Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) to provide $2 billion for fatherhood projects. The CRC is not without controversy. Part of the group's philosophy relies on a social theory developed by Dr. Richard Gardner, a child psychologist. The theory, parental alienation syndrome (PAS), describes a disorder in which the custodial parent sets the child against the non-custodial parent, most often the father. The theory has not been recognized by the American Psychiatric Association and has been criticized by child abuse experts. Gardner and other proponents of PAS have testified in numerous family court cases. In some cases, the courts have reversed custody decisions based on the theory, placing the child with the father who has a record of child abuse or molestation. Gardner himself has written articles expressing the idea that incest and pedophilia may not be as traumatic as current social attitudes suggest. The group's advisory board also includes political scientist Warren Farrell, who has questioned the idea that participants in incest are all victims, and clinical psychiatrist John Money, who has challenged the validity of age-of-consent laws. David Levy, president of the CRC, was unavailable for comment. Earlier this year, Republicans blasted a study in the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association that suggested college-age students who had been victims of sexual abuse were harmed less than generally believed. A House aide said the bill, sponsored by Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.), had been a bipartisan effort. It was approved last week by the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. The aide said staff met with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund to address possible constitutional problems, but expressed surprise at other complaints. According to NOW, the Legal Defense Fund is not part of the National Organization for Women, who said they were unaware of the bill until recently. They did not discuss the bill with committee staffers. "Their concerns about issues of domestic violence are well-placed," said the aide. "But I don't understand why they want to throw out the whole thing. It's better to be in a project that can deal with the issues than to not have one." The bill proposes authorizing approximately $140 million over four years for programs that promote marriage, teach parenting skills and provide job training. An additional $15 million will go to three groups for a media campaign and multi-city projects. According to Wade Horn, president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, the bill represents a wide spectrum of views and received broad support in Congress. "I don't know how anyone could be against this, unless they hate marriage or hate men," Horn said. "We think children will do best with the love and support of a responsible father." A House aide said the CRC would probably not be eligible for any of the $15 million for the multi-city program, but might be eligible for a piece of the $150 million reserved for smaller projects, if they applied. Liz Richards, national director for the National Alliance for Family Court Justice, said such groups have proved to have agendas other than promoting good parenting. "We're lobbying against these groups because of their past history," Richards said. "Their association with Gardner and others and other programs that have been misused should disqualify them from this new proposal." | |
Front Page | More News | Features & Opinions | Campaign 2000 | Resources | Advertising | Classifieds | Subscribe | About Us | Federal Government Links | Back Issues
The Hill
Copyright - 1999 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Any questions or comments can be sent to jyngling@hillnews.com
