[Indexed as: Cassidy, Robert, “Men and Divorce, Part 1 of 4: Do Divorce Laws Favor Women?” syndicated (Field Enterprises), Feb. 6, 1977]

***

More than a million couples will divorce this year in the United States society traditionally focuses on the dilemma of the women and children of divorce — largely glossing over the fact that men as well have serious problems u a result of divorce.

In this first of a four-part series, writer-editor Robert Cassidy offers a survival kit for the harried divorced man, based in part on his own experience. He spells out the deep-rooted legal bias against men, the financial and emotional drain of alimony and custody fights. And he tells how men across the country are banding together to help each other achieve fair play and personal growth.

***

The divorce laws and the divorce courts of America discriminate against men. Take just a few examples of bias:

— Only men pay alimony and child support. Though the laws in most slates say both marriage partners are equally responsible for one another’s care and that of the children, it is the rare case when a woman has to pay alimony or child support.

— Men have no control over how the money they send their ex-wives will be spent. Wives are not required to prove that they use child-support money for the children’s benefit. Nor is there much a man can do when the hard-earned cash he sends is used to “support” his ex-wife’s live-in boyfriend.

— Men obtain custody of their children in only a small percentage of cases—as low as 2 or 3 per cent in some states. Most states have laws staling that the granting of custody shall not be determined by the parents’ sex. But, even in these progressive states, many judges still feel that children are automatically bettor off with their mothers — often without any proof to that effect.

— Men are tossed into jail for violating support orders. But rarely is a woman jailed or even threatened with contempt of court for falling to keep her side of the divorce decree – such as letting her husband visit the children.

— Even the government discriminates against divorced men. A new federal ruling permits law enforcement officers to track down men who fall to pay support — using Social Security numbers, fingerprint records and income-tax returns, if necessary. Yet, there’s nothing in the law to open up these files to men whose wives have fled with the couple’s children in violation of a custody order.

One frustrated divorced man describes how the system works: “It’s the old story. You go to court and get no satisfaction. She goes to court and gels everything.” The case of Roger Black (not his real name) illustrates what so often happens to men In divorce court. Black, a 40-year-old sales clerk In a New York suburb, came home one night lo find that his young bride had taken off with their infant daughter and $10,000 from a joint savings account. Black nearly went crazy trying to find them.

The next lime he heard from his wife was when he was served papers to appear at a court hearing. At the hearing, the Judge awarded custody of the child to Black’s wife and ordered him to pay alimony and child support. “I questioned the court’s decision, wherein they automatically gave custody to her even though she had deserted me,” says Black.

“There was also the mailer of the missing $10,000. The judge wouldn’t listen.” Black’s wife refused lo let him see the child,’ even though the court order slated clearly that he had the right. Black’s wife would hide the child In a friend’s apartment or just not answer the doorbell when he came to see his daughter. “All along, visitation was being denied, but the court would do nothing about that,” he observed drily.

When Black was hurt in an auto accident and lost his job, he fell behind in support payments. The court acted swiftly, first threatening him with jail and then actually locking him up for a day and a night. The judge forced Black to borrow money to pay his arrears, even though the man was still recuperating from his accident. Nor did he get to see his daughter. “The judge didn’t want to hear about visitation,” Black recalls.

Later, his wife moved to another state with the child, still refusing lo let him see the little girl even while demanding her weekly check.

The legal prejudice against men is not new. It has its roots deep in church law and English common law, which became the basis for American divorce law.

In simple terms, American divorce law assumed that the man was the provider and the woman, the home keeper in the family. In the event of divorce, the law decreed that the man would pay the bills and the woman would take care of the home and the children. That’s still how the law is interpreted in many jurisdictions.

But some states are reforming their divorce laws — a good sign for men. Today, it’s easier to get a divorce than it ever was. All but three states – Illinois, Pennsylvania and South Dakota — have some form of “no-fault” divorce. Under no fault, the divorce may be granted because of the “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage,” or because “irreconcilable differences” have come between the parties — or simply because the couple has lived apart for a stipulated period. No longer must one of the parties prove the other guilty of adultery, cruelty or any of the traditional grounds.

In other areas of the laws governing divorce, progress is also being made, albeit largely on paper. In most states, the law decrees that the sex of the parents may not be the deciding factor in awarding custody: The “best interests of the child” are paramount.

As for alimony, that divorce-court tinderbox, it is being awarded for shorter periods, with a view to the wife’s returning to the work force if she is not already in it. Alimony is available to men legally, if not in fact, in all but the following 13 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming. Additionally, the laws of nearly all states require both parents, not just the father, to be responsible for their children’s support.

Despite these changes in legalese, some states have not come around to eradicating the bias against men in their divorce laws. More importantly, individual judges holding reign in courthouses across the land exercise enormous power when it comes to handing down support decrees, deciding custody issues and dividing the couple’s property. Many divorce courts are still run like star chambers.

Happily, this discrimination is being attacked. Men are working together to pressure stale legislatures Into enacting fair laws and to assure that individual men are treated fairly by the courts In cities throughout the nation.

Boston: Fathers United for Equal Justice (FUEJ) has been lobbying for reform of the Massachusetts custody law. The group also provides volunteers who sit in on divorce cases to monitor judges’ actions.

St. Paul, Minn.: The Men’s Rights Association, led by reformer Richard Doyle, keeps close tabs on local and national cases of discrimination against men.

Los Angeles: Fathers Demanding Equal Justice is demanding that local prosecutors get tough with wives who refuse lo grant proper visitation in violation of state law.

Chicago: The American Divorce Association for Men (ADAM) and The American Society for Divorced Men (ASDM) provide individual counseling for men and keep ready a battery of “male chauvinist” lawyers who ere committed to the fight for men’s rights.

These men’s-rights groups have not met with success In every case. And the history of the divorce-reform movement in the United States shows that most men stay active only so long as their own cases are in the works. Then they drop out.

But the determination of these groups and the mushrooming of new ones show that there Is a movement among men to reform divorce laws, keep tabs on the courts, and work together to help one another through that nastiest of male/female encounters: divorce.

“There are thousands of guys like me in this area.” says Charles Cornell, who started a FUEJ branch in Corning, N.Y.

***

Part 1: “Do Divorce Laws Favor Women?” Feb. 6, 1977

Part 2: “Divorce Triggers Emotional Reaction,” Feb. 7, 1977

Part 3: “What Happens to Divorced Fathers,” Feb. 8, 1977

Part 4: “Divorce Can Lead to Personal Growth,” Feb. 9, 1977

NOTE

Dates of publication and titles vary from paper to paper.

RETURN TO INDEX OF LINKED HISTORICAL TEXTS