The Potential Costs of Father Presence

I have previously spoken of the marriage promotion initiatives set forth by the Bush administration, and the fatherhood initiatives that Obama has supported. Do people not understand than when we as mothers decided that a man should not be in our lives, it is for the benefit of the children?

Sometimes, it takes us awhile and we blame it on love. We want to see the best in a man, in a father. We break our necks encouraging the father-child relationship, thinking that our children would be fatally flawed without the presence of a man. But then one day, we wake up and decide that this shit just ain't workin', and that our children will never thrive if we do not remove the negativity from their presence.

From Dr. Michael Flood's Fatherhood and Fatherlessness (emphasis mine):

While ‘responsible fatherhood’ policies, for example in the US, have been based on the assumption that the effects of fathers’ presence are uniform across families, recent research finds instead that fathers’ presence has diverse effects on children, and that in some cases these are negative. Some fathers, particularly some unmarried and non-resident fathers, have difficulty in providing positive parenting experiences for their children. In addition, a minority of fathers engage in high levels of antisocial behaviour, and to the extent that they are present in their children’s lives, their children’s well-being suffers in significant ways. In other words, in the case of some fathers their presence in fact has a harmful effect on children while their absence is beneficial.

Both points suggest that the uncritical promotion of father presence can have unintended negative effects on women, children and families. Despite this, on the basis of the finding that children of two-biological-parent families do better in general than children in single-parent families, some researchers and policymakers in the US have come to the conclusion that children will benefit if their parents are encouraged to get married and stay married (Jaffee et al. 2003, p. 110). They emphasise marriage rather than mere cohabitation and have enacted a series of pro-marriage policies via welfare reform especially. These include removing regulations that potentially discourage marriage, funding programs to promote marriage, and providing further incentives such as cash rewards to couples who get married.

However, among the American parents and families typically addressed in such policies, a substantial share of the targeted fathers exhibit characteristics which are not conducive to increased engagement with families including negative behaviours such as violence, drug abuse and other criminal activity (Waller and Bailey 2002, p. 1). Moreover, such negative characteristics were also displayed by fathers who were married either at or after the birth, so marriage may not encourage men to change their behaviours (Waller and Bailey 2002, p. 37). American research also finds that while the economic benefits of marriage are especially strong among women from disadvantaged families, among women who marry but later divorce, poverty rates exceed those of never-married women (Lichter et al. 2003, p. 60). The authors emphasise that, ‘Marriage alone will not offset the long-term deleterious effects associated with unwed childbearing, nor will it eliminate the existing disparity in poverty and welfare receipt among various racial and ethnic groups.’ (Lichter et al. 2003, p. 60)

The US Fragile Families Study follows a birth cohort of 4700 children, three quarters of whom were born to unmarried parents. Compared to married fathers, unmarried fathers had higher rates of illicit drug use, partner violence and depression (Jaffee et al. 2003, p. 111). Compared to resident young fathers (and controlling for marital status), non-resident young fathers were poorer, more likely to be unemployed, revealed lower thresholds for fear, anxiety and anger, had more drug and alcohol problems, and engaged in more crime and abusive behaviour towards women. These involvements compromise such men’s ability to be reliable sources of emotional and financial support. As to whether unwed fathers’ social, economic and psychological prospects would improve if they were married to the mothers of their children, the evidence is inconclusive (Jaffee et al. 2003, p. 111).

There are good reasons, therefore, to be wary of the simplistic promotion of father presence and marriage as ways to improve children’s well-being. It is dangerous to advocate that all non-resident fathers be enticed or pushed into residing with their
children and that unmarried fathers marry the mothers of their children without addressing such issues. Efforts at marriage promotion must consider the real and legitimate concerns which inform some low-income single mothers’ perceptions of non-marriage as a better alternative to marriage (Jaffee et al. 2003, p. 121). Some fathers (and mothers) are in no position to provide quality parenting and their presence in families will, in fact, do more harm than good. Of course this does not mean that such people should be abandoned. Fathers dealing with issues of drug abuse and violence, mental health, and unemployment and poverty must be supported. But the promotion of their involvement in families should not be at the expense of children or women.

We love our men but we cannot and need not let anyone destroy the fruit of our wombs.