In Defense of Single-Parent Families 9780814721087

Citation preview

In Defens e o f Single-Paren t Familie s

In Defense o f Single-Parent Familie s

NANCY E.

DOWD

n

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK AND LONDON

NEW YOR K UNIVERSIT Y PRES S New Yor k an d Londo n Copyright © 199 7 b y Ne w Yor k Universit y ALL RIGHT S RESERVE D

Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a Dowd, Nanc y E. , 1949 In defens e o f single-paren t familie s / Nanc y E . Dowd . p. cm . Includes bibliographica l reference s an d index . Contents: th e storie s o f stigm a : what w e sa y abou t single-paren t families — Th e realitie s : what w e kno w abou t single-paren t families. Th e povert y justification . Th e developmenta l justification. Th e moralit y justification . Implici t justification s : race an d gende r storie s — Divorce d singl e parents . Th e contex t o f work an d family . Famil y law . Employmen t law . Welfare. Conclusio n : law, stigma , equality , an d choic e — Nonmarita l single-paren t families. Th e contex t : nonmarital singl e parents . Nonmarita l families an d th e la w — Singl e parent s a s positiv e rol e models . Black singl e mother s an d thei r families . Genera l characteristic s o f single-parent familie s — Policie s fo r single-paren t families . Lessons fro m wher e w e ar e now . Element s o f change d polic y towar d single-parent familie s — Lega l strategies . Definin g family . Famil y support. ISBN 0-8147-1869- 8 (alk . paper ) 1. Single-paren t family—Unite d States . 2 . Singl e mothers—Unite d States. 3 . Singl e fathers—Unite d States . 4 . Singl e parents—Lega l status, laws , etc.—Unite d States . I . Title . HQ759.915.D69 199 7 306.85 '6—dc2o 96-2526 8 CIP New Yor k Universit y Pres s book s ar e printe d o n acid-fre e paper , and thei r bindin g material s ar e chose n fo r strengt h an d durability . Manufactured i n th e Unite d State s o f Americ a 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

To Zoe and Zachary

Contents

Introduction x PART I Myth

i

s an d Realitie s 1

Chapter 1 Th e Storie s o f Stigma : Wha t W e Sa y abou t Single-Parent Familie s 3 Chapter 2 Th e Realities : What W e Know abou t Single-Parent Familie s 1

6

The Poverty Justification 1 8 The Developmental Justificatio n 2 7 The Morality Justificatio n 3 9 Implicit Justifications : Rac e and Gender Storie s 4 4

PART II La

w & Single Parent s 5

Chapter 3 Divorce d Singl e Parent s ^ The Contex t o f Work an d Famil y 56

vn

3

55

Viii / CONTENT S Family La w 6 0 Employment La w 7 0 Welfare 7 4 Conclusion: Law, Stigma, Equality , and Choice 7 6 Chapter 4 Nonmarita l Single-Paren t Familie s 7

8

The Context : Nonmarital Singl e Parents 8 1 Nonmarital Familie s and the Law 8 1 Chapter 5 Singl e Parent s a s Positiv e Rol e Model s 10

3

Black Single Mothers and Their Familie s 10 4 General Characteristic s of Single-Parent Familie s 10 8 Conclusion 11 5 PART II I La w Refor m 11

7

Chapter 6 Policie s fo r Single-Paren t Familie s 11

9

Lessons fro m Wher e W e Are Now 12 1 Elements of Changed Polic y Toward Single-Paren t Familie s 12 9 Chapter 7 Lega l Strategie s 14

6

Defining Famil y 15 2 Family Suppor t 15 9 Epilogue 17

0

Notes 17

3

References 18

1

Index

199

Acknowledgments

Many peopl e mad e thi s boo k possible . I woul d lik e t o acknowledg e their hel p an d than k the m fo r thei r support . I hav e bee n blesse d wit h extraordinar y researc h assistant s wh o have share d thei r intellectua l gift s a s wel l a s thei r friendship : Rose mary Howard , Crai g Williams , Teres a Drake , Linne a Schram , Jud y Erwin, Lis a Osborne , an d Terr y Bradford . Whil e al l of the m contrib uted i n significan t ways , Rosemar y Howard' s wor k o n th e boo k wa s especially critica l t o completin g th e project . He r dedicatio n an d tire less effor t wer e extraordinary . Pam Smith , m y secretary , ha s see n thi s projec t throug h wit h humor, compassion , an d continua l support . The multidisciplinar y researc h coul d no t hav e bee n don e withou t the expertis e an d diligenc e o f th e staf f o f th e La w Librar y o f th e University o f Florid a Colleg e o f Law . Rosalie Sanderso n i n particula r was unfailingl y helpful . I n th e las t stage s o f th e revision s o f th e manuscript, Juli a McMaho n O'Higgin s o f th e Davi s La w Librar y o f the Aucklan d Universit y Schoo l o f La w provided invaluabl e suppor t IX

X / ACKNOWLEDGMENT S

which enable d m e t o complet e m y revisions . I a m als o gratefu l fo r the financia l suppor t whic h enable d m e t o writ e tha t wa s provide d by th e Universit y o f Florid a Colleg e o f Law . My thinkin g abou t singl e parent s ha s bee n enriche d an d chal lenged b y many . The y includ e Elizabet h McCulloch , Mart y Peters , Sharon Rush , Ja n Perea , Marth a Fineman , Paulett e Caldwell , Eliza beth Bartholet , Wend y Fitzgerald , Walte r Weyrauch , Lisett e Bur rows, Barbar a Bennet t Woodhouse , Doroth y Roberts , Patrici a Brad ford, Kare n Blum , Larr y Kalevitch , Michell e Jacobs , an d Do n Peters . I als o benefite d b y presentin g portion s o f th e researc h i n 199 4 a t meetings o f th e Internationa l Societ y o f Famil y Law , an d th e La w and Societ y Association , a s wel l a s t o th e Conferenc e o n Feminis m and Lega l Theor y a t Columbi a Universit y i n th e summe r o f 1995 . My student s i n th e semina r o n Nontraditiona l Familie s a t th e Uni versity o f Florid a i n th e fal l o f 199 5 als o challenged m y thinkin g an d conclusions. Niko Pfund , m y primar y edito r a t Ne w Yor k Universit y Press , has bee n a n enthusiasti c supporte r an d thoughtfu l contributor . On e anonymous reade r wh o reviewe d th e manuscrip t contribute d valu able insights an d feedback . My friend s an d famil y hav e pu t u p wit h m e throug h th e inevita ble har d time s o f thi s project . Particula r thank s g o t o Jan e Pender gast, Dorot a Hamen , an d Patrici a Bradford , an d t o m y sister , Patrici a McDermott, wh o ha s alway s bee n ther e fo r me . My deepes t lov e an d appreciatio n g o t o m y children , wh o hav e taught m e mor e tha n the y wil l eve r kno w an d tolerate d s o muc h s o that mo m coul d finis h he r book . I love you—higher tha n th e moon , wider tha n th e sky .

Introduction

"I a m a single parent/ ' Th e statemen t evoke s admiration , sympathy , pity, disgust , uneasiness , skepticism . I neve r planne d o n bein g a single parent . Fe w do . I gre w u p wit h a n idea l o f parentin g a s something I would d o with a husband , withi n a marriage . Choosin g to paren t alon e wa s simpl y no t a n option . Unwe d pregnanc y wa s t o be avoided a t al l costs. Divorce was rare an d tragic . If it occurred , on e remedied i t a s quickl y a s possibl e wit h remarriage , especiall y i f on e wanted t o hav e childre n o r rais e existin g children . In m y lat e thirties , divorced , childless , an d stil l no t remarried , I nevertheless s o strongl y wante d t o paren t tha t I reexamine d thes e principles an d decided , afte r muc h difficul t soul-searching , tha t wha t was mos t importan t wa s m y desir e an d m y abilit y t o parent . Whe n I adopte d m y daughter , m y famil y an d friend s greete d u s withou t apprehension, wit h genuin e suppor t an d joy. But I remembe r th e confusio n o f on e friend , wh o afte r hearin g my new s looked a t me, puzzled, an d said , "So , does that mak e you — an unwe d mothe r ?" M y high-schoo l person a immediatel y ros e t o XI

Xii / INTRODUCTIO N

the surfac e an d I wante d t o sa y no , becaus e unwe d mother s wer e "bad" girl s wh o ha d mad e a "mistake " an d gotte n pregnant , who m family an d communit y shame d an d rejected . I t wa s a labe l lade n with a clea r cultural , moral , an d religiou s messag e o f stigm a fo r m e and fo r m y child . I had mad e a conscious, reasoned , matur e decisio n to becom e a paren t tha t di d no t fi t th e stereotype d connotatio n o f "unwed mother. " Yet I realize d th e answe r was , i n anothe r sense , yes . I wa s a mother an d unmarried , parentin g alone . A comple x se t o f socia l an d cultural change s ha d give n m e a ne w labe l t o claim , tha t o f "singl e parent," whic h seeme d fre e fro m th e moralisti c condemnatio n an d gendered name-callin g o f "unwe d mother. " Indeed , durin g th e homestudy proces s fo r m y adoption , m y socia l worke r sai d h e wa s comfortable wit h approvin g m e as an adoptiv e paren t despit e the fac t that I wa s single , becaus e s o man y childre n wer e raise d i n single parent familie s tha t m y prospectiv e child' s famil y woul d no t b e "different." Yet onc e I becam e a parent , virtuall y everythin g I rea d o r sa w about single-paren t familie s indicate d tha t i t i s a statu s stil l charge d with negativ e connotations . Single-paren t familie s ar e regularl y equated wit h poverty , famil y breakdown , juvenil e delinquency , an d crime. We often blam e singl e parent s a s th e caus e o f thes e socia l ills. And whil e th e connection s ar e tie d t o a gender-neutra l label , i n reality w e link thes e socia l problem s t o parenting b y singl e mothers, because i t i s the y wh o d o mos t o f th e parentin g i n single-paren t families. The total absenc e o f a father i n m y famil y i s strangely unremark able. Certainl y i t technicall y separate s m y childre n ( I late r als o adopted a son ) fro m mos t childre n i n single-paren t families , wh o b y virtue o f biolog y a s wel l a s lega l statu s hav e bot h a mothe r an d a father. Bu t i n realit y m y childre n experienc e famil y a s th e vas t majority o f childre n o f single-paren t familie s do , a s sol e parentin g by thei r mother . Mos t singl e father s ar e singl e parents i n a differen t way fro m mos t singl e mothers : the y ar e parent s b y virtu e o f a biological lin k o r lega l statu s a s a noncustodia l parent . The y ar e expected t o suppor t thei r childre n economically , bu t onl y rarel y ar e they caretaker s o f thei r children . I t remain s uncommo n fo r me n t o have sol e o r primar y custod y o f thei r children , o r t o maintai n a n ongoing significan t caretakin g relationshi p wit h them . W e sociall y

xiii / INTRODUCTIO N

accept, indee d arguabl y support , a concep t o f fatherin g tha t expect s men t o separat e fro m thei r childre n i f the y d o not remai n connecte d to th e children' s mother . Thi s expecte d gendere d allocatio n o f care taking eithe r render s invisibl e thos e singl e father s wh o paren t lik e single mothers , o r elevate s the m t o nea r sainthoo d fo r thei r perfor mance o f th e ver y rol e fo r whic h mother s see m inevitabl y subjec t t o criticism, regardles s o f ho w wel l the y perform . Although I fi t th e nor m o f singl e paren t a s a singl e mother , I nevertheless becam e a single parent i n a n unconventiona l way . Typically, peopl e becom e singl e parent s b y havin g a chil d withou t mar rying o r b y divorcin g afte r havin g children . Today , nearl y one-thir d of America n familie s wit h childre n unde r ag e eightee n ar e single parent families , doubl e th e numbe r les s tha n tw o decade s ago . Sepa ration an d divorc e creat e mos t single-paren t families , accountin g fo r twice a s man y single-paren t familie s (6 0 percent ) a s th e failur e t o marry (3 0 percent) , whil e th e deat h o f a paren t create s les s tha n 7 percent o f suc h families . On e o f th e od d byproduct s o f m y adoptin g a chil d i s tha t peopl e imagin e m e a s som e sor t o f marty r doin g a good deed , castin g me i n star k relie f t o someon e perceive d a s makin g a selfis h o r misguide d decisio n t o hav e a chil d an d rais e i t o n he r own a s a n unmarrie d singl e mother . I see m t o b e accorde d a statu s closest t o tha t o f widows , th e mos t honore d an d supporte d singl e parents, althoug h I remai n suspec t becaus e m y singl e parentin g i s not associate d wit h th e deat h o f a husband . In anothe r respec t I als o a m a n unconventiona l singl e mothe r i n that I a m no t poor . Nearl y 9 0 percen t o f childre n raise d i n single parent familie s ar e raised by singl e mothers; half o f those household s are belo w th e povert y line . M y childre n wil l no t suffe r fro m th e consequences o f povert y simpl y becaus e m y incom e fa r exceed s tha t of mos t singl e mothers , althoug h eigh t ou t o f te n singl e mothers , like me, do wage work. Singl e fathers , whethe r wit h o r without thei r children i n thei r household , d o no t shar e thi s hig h povert y rate . A n enormous proportio n o f singl e father s contribut e littl e o r nothin g economically t o the support o f their children . Public income support s do littl e t o lesse n thes e hars h economi c realities . Th e consequence s are profound . Povert y i s indisputabl y a powerfu l an d bruta l detri ment t o opportunity an d achievement, cripplin g to health, education , and employment , an d strongl y linke d t o crim e an d violence . The stigm a attache d t o single-paren t familie s divert s attentio n

Xiv / INTRODUCTIO N

from povert y whil e blamin g singl e parent s fo r th e povert y o f thei r families. I t i s a crue l Catc h 22 . B y focusin g o n famil y for m an d status, societ y categorize s b y marita l statu s an d b y th e numbe r o f people parentin g a chil d i n a household . Blamin g parent s fo r th e poverty o f th e famil y presume s tha t ther e i s a mean s o r choic e t o avoid tha t poverty . I t i s a fla w o f characte r o r commitmen t b y th e parent tha t i s perceive d a s resultin g i n poverty , eithe r becaus e the y made a poo r economi c decisio n i n choosin g t o becom e a singl e parent, o r becaus e the y faile d t o wor k har d enoug h t o avoi d povert y once th e choic e wa s made . Assignin g faul t t o th e paren t b y stigma tizing single-paren t familie s justifie s th e consequence s o f povert y a s deserved. No t onl y th e errin g parent , bu t als o childre n wh o hav e th e bad luc k t o b e connecte d t o parent s wh o mak e ba d choices , ar e stuc k with th e consequence s o f thi s stigma . To be clear: the economi c circumstances o f mos t singl e parents ar e not cause d b y famil y for m bu t rathe r b y th e consequence s o f a complex combinatio n o f entrenche d gende r roles , failure t o acknowl edge an d dea l wit h dependency , an d th e debilitatin g consequence s o f ongoing racism . Mos t singl e parent s canno t choos e whethe r o r no t to live in poverty. The lack of choice s is predetermined b y a structur e which penalize s thes e parent s becaus e o f thei r status , an d whic h refuses t o recogniz e th e legitimac y o f an y famil y othe r tha n a heterosexual, married , two-paren t family . I n addition, th e difficultie s suffered b y man y single-paren t familie s simpl y expos e mor e clearl y the debilitatin g impac t o f conflict s betwee n wor k an d famil y respon sibilities, conflict s tha t undermin e al l kinds o f families . The condemnatio n o f singl e mother s fo r raisin g childre n withou t fathers i s another basi s fo r th e stigmatizin g o f single-paren t families . This hurt s father s a s well a s mothers becaus e par t o f th e underlyin g rationale—that tw o parent s o f opposit e sexe s ar e a n essential , irre ducible minimu m fo r health y chil d development—undermine s sup port fo r singl e father s jus t a s it doe s suppor t fo r singl e mothers . Bu t the nearl y exclusiv e concer n wit h fathe r absenc e a s a corollar y o f this principl e reflect s bot h th e dominanc e o f mother s i n caretakin g in al l famil y structure s an d a n uneasines s wit h th e implication s o f women successfull y parentin g alone . Althoug h societ y sometime s presumes single-paren t father s wit h primar y o r sol e custod y o f thei r children ar e inadequat e a s parents , mor e ofte n w e vie w father s wit h sympathy rathe r tha n criticiz e the m fo r failin g t o hav e a mothe r i n

XV / I N T R O D U C T I O N

the household . Bu t w e condem n singl e mother s fo r precisel y that : the absenc e o f a fathe r an d th e presume d consequence s o f fathe r absence. Singl e motherin g i s by definitio n deficien t an d inadequate . Single father s hav e bee n rightl y criticize d fo r thei r failur e t o support thei r childre n financially . Bu t w e d o no t condem n father s for failin g t o paren t thei r childre n sociall y o r psychologically . Th e concern s o eviden t i n th e critiqu e o f mother s i s no t parallele d b y a critique o f father s o r socia l conception s o f fatherhood . W e rarel y question ho w w e a s a societ y se e fatherhood . Wh y i s i t difficul t an d unusual fo r me n t o nurtur e thei r children ? Wh y d o we expec t the m to separat e emotionall y fro m thei r childre n wit h a n eas e w e woul d find callou s an d unnatura l i n mothers ? W e blame mother s fo r failin g to hav e a ma n present , an d w e presum e fro m tha t failur e tha t thei r families ar e dysfunctiona l an d psychologicall y harmful . W e blam e fathers fo r no t fulfillin g th e rol e o f economi c provider, bu t w e do no t expect an y broade r fatherin g role . Research simpl y doe s no t suppor t th e vie w tha t singl e parentin g is harmful t o children becaus e it prevents health y chil d development . To the contrary , al l tha t w e kno w abou t familie s demonstrate s tha t family for m simpl y doe s not correlat e with famil y functio n o r devel opmental health . Dysfunctional families come in all shapes and sizes; so do healthy families. Furthermore , th e processe s o f huma n development d o no t occu r i n isolatio n i n a househol d incubator , bu t rather ar e a comple x interactio n o f family , community , an d educa tional institutions . N o singl e for m o f famil y i s essential , no r i s i t a guarantor o f healthy , happ y children . By pointin g th e finge r a t famil y form, w e deflec t discussio n awa y from th e ver y rea l problem s single-paren t familie s face . Fixe d o n allocating blame , w e obscur e th e choice s w e ar e makin g abou t chil dren an d ou r socia l future : tha t judgment s abou t parent s justif y putting childre n a t risk, by fosterin g a n economi c and socia l environ ment calculate d t o produc e failure , frustration , an d harm . Blamin g single parent s fo r th e povert y o f thei r familie s i s no t onl y wrong , i t is social suicide . Presuming th e inadequac y o f singl e parentin g i s no t only cruel , bu t self-defeating . The stigmatizin g o f singl e parent s inform s popula r culture , and , in s o doing , justifie s th e structur e o f policie s an d institution s tha t have enormou s impac t o n th e live s o f singl e parent s an d thei r fami lies. Th e ideolog y o f stigm a pervade s th e law , underlyin g divorc e

XVi / INTRODUCTIO N

laws and welfare structures , both o f which weig h heavil y o n th e live s of single-paren t families . Throug h thes e structure s la w condemn s rather tha n support s single-paren t families , contributin g t o th e im poverishment o f thes e familie s an d th e predictabl e consequence s o f poverty. The lega l structur e o f divorc e function s t o perpetuat e th e eco nomic impoverishmen t an d asymmetri c psychologica l relationship s of de facto single-paren t familie s tha t exis t within intac t marriages . Single parentin g exist s withi n marriage—indee d marriag e fosters it—as th e resul t o f existin g work-famil y structure s an d th e persis tence o f gende r role s an d gende r segregation , withi n an d outsid e th e family. Wh y ar e we no t surprise d tha t mos t childre n raise d solel y o r primarily b y on e paren t ar e raise d b y a singl e mother ? An d ho w i s it tha t w e fin d i t unremarkabl e tha t me n spen d littl e o r n o tim e parenting thei r children ? Indeed , wh y d o we expec t singl e father s t o emotionally separat e fro m thei r children ? Ou r acceptanc e o f suc h strong gende r imbalanc e i n parentin g spring s fro m th e persistenc e of outdate d stereotype s o f wome n parentin g an d me n working , an d the absenc e o f an y new , well-articulate d gende r roles . T o the exten t that ther e i s a ne w gende r idea l o f equalit y i n parentin g an d work , neither famil y lif e no r wor k full y support s it . Th e consequenc e i s that singl e parenting , wit h it s characteristi c distinctiv e patter n fo r single mother s an d singl e fathers , i s create d withi n marriage . Moth ers parent , physicall y an d psychologically , t o a fa r greate r degre e than fathers . Face d wit h a doubl e shif t a t hom e an d occupationa l segregation an d lo w wages a t work , mother s voluntaril y o r involun tarily trad e parenting fo r job opportunity an d income. Their spouse' s income conceal s thei r economi c vulnerabilit y durin g marriage , a vulnerability tha t become s apparen t wit h divorce . Father s similarl y trade of f significan t caretakin g i n orde r t o provid e economically , a role strongl y supporte d i n th e workplace an d th e family . The illusio n o f equalit y hide s th e economi c an d psychologica l imbalance o f marriage . Ou r semanti c an d ideologica l commitmen t t o equality constantl y pushe s u s t o den y inequality , o r t o minimiz e significant deviations , o r t o accept the m a s "choice/ ' Ou r unwilling ness t o confron t th e consequence s o f children' s dependenc y als o contributes t o a refusa l t o se e thi s imbalance . Eve n i n instance s o f near equality , w e den y th e evidenc e o f inadequat e care , refusin g t o confront th e rea l need s o f dependen t children .

Xvii / INTRODUCTIO N

Yet, with divorce , the inequalities become clearl y apparent; indeed , they ge t worse . Economic impoverishmen t an d fathe r absenc e ar e al l too ofte n characteristi c o f singl e parenthoo d create d a t divorce . Th e judgment tha t single-paren t familie s ar e ba d families , t o b e discour aged an d avoided , o r a t best , grudgingl y permitted , underlie s th e unwillingness t o provid e single-paren t familie s wit h th e postdivorc e resources they need . Fathers' removal fro m th e lives of their childre n is sanctioned , eve n encouraged . The y ar e prepare d fo r thi s b y thei r role a s secondar y parent s withi n marriage , an d th e constructio n o f fathering a s economic fatherhoo d make s the m equat e parentin g wit h money. Thi s encourage s the m t o believ e tha t thei r parentin g end s when the y d o not o r canno t pa y chil d support . The inadequacie s o f th e divorc e an d employmen t structur e ar e magnified fo r nonmarita l single-paren t families . Th e minimal , ofte n ephemeral suppor t authorize d b y chil d suppor t statute s i s simpl y unavailable fo r th e vas t majorit y o f childre n o f nonmarita l singl e parents. Th e reaso n i s simple : tha t entitlemen t i s triggere d onl y i f paternity i s established , an d th e paternit y rat e fo r nonmarita l chil dren i s a mere 3 0 percent. The childre n o f non-marital singl e parent s are therefor e doubl y stigmatized , becaus e the y ar e bein g raise d b y a single mothe r an d becaus e the y ar e legall y fatherless . The welfar e syste m exacerbate s th e lac k o f meaningfu l suppor t o f single-parent families . A significan t proportio n o f divorce d parents , as wel l a s never-marrie d singl e parents , tur n t o welfar e a s a tempo rary, necessar y evil . Th e dynami c o f th e welfar e syste m eve n mor e explicitly condemn s singl e parents , especiall y never-marrie d singl e parents. Once again , th e syste m perpetuate s poverty . And t o a n eve n more pervers e extent , i t discourage s fathering . The additio n o f rac e exacerbate s gende r inequity . Mos t welfar e mothers ar e not Blac k mothers, but Blac k mothers ar e disproportion ately represente d a s compare d t o thei r proportio n o f th e population . African American s accoun t fo r les s tha n 4 0 percen t o f Ai d t o Fami lies wit h Dependen t Childre n (AFDC ) recipients , white s 3 8 percent , Hispanics 1 7 percent . Single-paren t never-marrie d familie s ar e fa r more predominan t i n th e Blac k communit y tha n i n th e whit e com munity. Marriag e i s th e mos t common , indee d fo r mos t wome n th e only, way ou t o f th e povert y o f singl e parenthood. Fo r Black women , however, th e economi c gai n o f marriag e i s ofte n absen t o r insignifi cant du e t o th e poo r economi c positio n o f Blac k men .

XViii / I N T R O D U C T I O N

Race an d gende r hav e muc h t o d o wit h th e stigm a o f single parent families . W e hav e lon g bee n willin g t o consig n th e vas t majority o f childre n o f Blac k familie s t o harshl y unequa l famil y circumstances tha t contribut e significantl y t o perpetuatin g inequal ity. Ou r sensitivit y t o men' s issue s an d ou r fea r o f supportin g women ha s resulte d i n ou r labelin g an y suppor t o f singl e mother s a s an attac k o n men , an d silencin g critica l evaluatio n an d redefinitio n of fatherhood . Children hav e los t th e mos t fro m ou r stigmatizin g o f single parent families . Sevent y percen t o f al l childre n wil l spen d al l o r par t of thei r live s i n a single-paren t household . Th e lac k o f suppor t an d condemnation o f singl e parents , base d o n th e stigm a associate d wit h them, bear s mos t heavil y o n children . When I adopted m y secon d child , som e o f m y friend s wondere d i f I ha d gon e crazy . The y feare d tha t tw o childre n woul d b e beyon d my psychologica l an d physica l resources . Ye t a t th e sam e time , I recalled thos e wh o ha d said , afte r I adopted m y firs t child , tha t I was lucky t o be parentin g alone , without anothe r adult . Concern abou t resources , o f course , i s entirel y legitimate . Single parent familie s experienc e th e stres s o f inadequat e resources , finan cial and psychological , t o a greater degre e tha n d o two-parent house holds. W e mus t no t ignor e th e ver y rea l problem s tha t the y face . They includ e economi c needs a s well as problems o f time an d energy , and need s fo r socia l support . Removin g th e stigm a agains t single parent familie s shoul d not , must not , kee p u s fro m recognizin g th e problems the y confront . At th e sam e time , recognitio n o f th e valu e o f single-paren t fami lies i s als o crucial . I t ha d neve r occurre d t o m e tha t bein g a singl e parent coul d b e a benefit; I merel y sa w mysel f a s abl e t o overcom e and compensat e fo r th e absenc e o f anothe r paren t i n th e household . I viewed m y rol e as consciously compensatin g fo r a loss. I did not se e my famil y a s an alternative , differen t for m wit h it s ow n dynamic . I n the proces s o f evaluatin g th e assumption s underlyin g th e stigm a attached t o single-paren t families , th e dat a expos e severa l fascinatin g benefits. Single-paren t familie s ar e model s o f networkin g an d ex tended famil y systems . Th e famil y dynami c als o seem s t o produc e children wh o ar e independent , self-reliant , an d wh o believ e an d practice gende r respec t an d equality . My hop e i s tha t thi s boo k wil l reorien t th e debat e abou t single -

Xix / INTRODUCTIO N

parent familie s an d shif t entrenche d assumption s awa y fro m stigm a and towar d suppor t o f suc h families . Th e commonplac e assumptio n that single-paren t familie s ar e dysfunctiona l an d ba d because o f inherent, fata l flaw s i n thei r structur e i s unsupporte d rhetoric . T o the contrar y al l we know abou t familie s indicate s tha t structur e doe s not dictat e famil y functio n o r success . Childre n nee d love , care , an d parenting; structur e neithe r preclude s no r insure s tha t thos e thing s will b e present . W e nee d t o pu t childre n first , structur e second . I t makes n o sens e t o punis h childre n o r separat e the m fro m thei r families a s th e consequenc e o f structure s tha t the y ha d n o han d i n creating an d tha t ar e unconnecte d t o thei r well-being . Powerful incentive s remain—an d shoul d remain—fo r raisin g children i n two-paren t families . Supportin g single-paren t familie s need no t translat e int o destabilizin g two - o r multiple-paren t fami lies. Th e valu e o f particula r familie s i s no t define d b y blackballin g others. W e nee d no t choos e a singl e paradigm . B y supportin g singl e parents, w e ma y lear n way s famil y an d wor k structure s mus t b e changed t o suppor t al l families . B y learnin g fro m singl e parents , w e may bette r understan d ho w t o achiev e ou r idea l o f gende r equality . Partnership mus t fin d a new basis ; otherwis e w e ar e movin g t o onl y more subtl e suppor t fo r calcifie d gende r roles . Supportin g single parent familie s als o doe s no t mea n a rejectio n o f fathers . T o th e contrary, supportin g singl e parent s mus t includ e reorientin g th e concept an d suppor t o f fatherhood . Rethinking fatherhoo d i s on e o f th e challenge s t o reorientin g policy towar d single-paren t families . Sinc e s o man y singl e parent s raising childre n ar e mothers , an y suppor t o f single-paren t families , it migh t b e argued , undermine s th e rol e o f father s i n families . Th e perversity o f patriarch y i s suc h tha t an y defens e o r suppor t o f women i s ofte n rea d a s a n attac k o n men . Thi s re d herrin g o f male bashing hide s th e perpetuatio n o f a constrained , narro w rol e o f fathering. Teenage singl e parent s als o see m t o confoun d changin g polic y toward singl e parents . I t i s eas y t o attac k an y suggestio n o f suppor t for single-paren t familie s wit h th e argumen t tha t t o d o s o encour ages immatur e teenager s t o hav e children . Th e alarmin g rat e o f teenage pregnanc y an d parenthoo d canno t b e ignored . A t th e sam e time, i t make s n o sens e t o follo w a policy tha t punishe s an y positiv e step t o improve th e live s o f thei r children .

XX / INTRODUCTIO N

The difficultie s wit h respec t t o teenager s an d father s reflec t th e changes tha t hav e occurre d sinc e th e sixties , whe n th e mora l an d cultural condemnatio n o f singl e parenthoo d wa s s o clear . Concept s of sexualit y hav e changed . Premarita l se x i s mor e widel y accepted . At th e sam e time , se x educatio n an d birt h contro l remai n controver sial an d no t universall y available . Unwe d motherhoo d ha s shifte d from a statu s o f sham e t o on e o f hono r amon g som e teenager s an d adults; thi s shif t i n value s affect s th e incentive s t o hav e childre n an d to rais e them, rathe r tha n t o place them fo r adoption . There ha s bee n a sea change in attitude s abou t divorce , exemplified b y the shif t fro m fault t o no-faul t divorce . All o f thes e change s hav e create d th e illusio n o f mor e freedo m and choic e wit h respec t t o parenting , bu t th e consequence s remai n remarkably simila r t o thos e I was taugh t a s a teenager i n th e sixties . Successful singl e parentin g i s ofte n limite d t o thos e wit h resources ; for thos e without , i t i s a statu s fraugh t wit h negativ e consequences . The stronges t disincentiv e the n wa s mora l an d social ; toda y eco nomic realitie s woul d see m t o b e a disincentive . Ironically , however , even hars h economi c consequence s hav e ha d littl e effec t o n th e rat e of singl e parenthood . Th e increas e i n singl e parentin g i s not , i t seems, economicall y linked . Thus , th e economi c consequence s tha t we accep t a s justifie d b y ou r stigmatize d vie w o f singl e parent s are particularl y perverse , a s the y ar e unlikel y t o discourag e singl e parenting, bu t ver y likel y t o creat e long-ter m problem s fo r th e children i n thes e families . Viewed throug h th e len s o f race , th e perversit y o f stigmatizin g single-parent families , on e migh t cynicall y conclude , make s sens e a s part o f a n ongoin g assaul t upo n Blac k families . Rac e pervade s al l policy makin g becaus e o f th e hig h proportio n o f single-paren t fami lies amon g Africa n Americans . Th e storie s o f stigm a tha t blam e parents fi t neatl y int o a desir e t o blam e th e victim s rathe r tha n confront racia l hierarchy . Where migh t th e exposur e o f thi s unjustified , unnecessary , an d harmful stigmatizatio n o f singl e parent s lead ? Obviously , i t point s toward th e nee d fo r significan t refor m o f th e divorc e an d welfar e structures. W e nee d t o insur e economi c independenc e an d suppor t for caregivin g an d caretakin g o f childre n withi n a framewor k o f meaningful gende r an d rac e equality . W e nee d t o rethin k bot h th e economic an d relationshi p aspect s o f parentin g i f equalit y i s t o hav e real meaning .

XXi / I N T R O D U C T I O N

We mus t reconside r whethe r w e have a working mode l o f famil y which strike s a healthy balance between wag e work and family work . The traditional marita l contrac t an d work-family structur e purporte d to provid e economi c suppor t an d caregiving o n gendered lines , ofte n limited b y rac e privileg e t o whit e families . Wome n sacrifice d inde pendence, powe r an d opportunity ; me n sacrifice d love , nurturing , and giving . Unde r thi s model , childre n wer e assure d o f the caretak ing o f on e parent, wit h a backup, secondar y caregive r i n th e secon d parent. The goa l o f economi c independenc e mean s th e economi c self sufficiency o f each parent an d an economic minimum fo r household s with children , regardles s o f famil y form . Wages , privat e support , and publi c family-incom e suppor t allowances , eithe r singl y o r i n combination, ar e needed to achieve this goal. Economic independenc e also mean s thinkin g o f marriag e a s a trul y volitional , committe d relationship independen t o f a n economi c contract . I t mean s re conceiving marriag e i n a nondominating , coequa l way . If economi c independence i s assured, the n marriag e presume s peopl e partne r fo r reasons largel y apar t fro m economics . It also mean s tha t partnershi p in th e sam e household , whethe r marrie d o r otherwise , i s no t th e only mode l of parenting, but that economi c contribution i s a responsibility o f being a parent. A t the same time , w e cannot trea t unmar ried singl e parent s a s equivalen t t o previousl y marrie d singl e par ents, assumin g o r forcing a relationship tha t neve r was. In additio n t o th e economi c sid e o f parenting , w e nee d t o re conceive th e statu s o f caregivin g wor k whic h lie s a t th e hear t o f parenting. Thi s mean s a commitment t o the nurture o f children an d support o f thos e wh o nurture . W e ca n encourag e th e biological , adoptive, or foster parent s to do so under th e same roof, in a committed relationshi p o f thei r own , but can also encourag e th e suppor t o f single parents an d their network s o f caregivers. Particularly, w e must value th e car e o f childre n a t leas t a s muc h a s we impos e economi c responsibility o n thos e wh o become parents . An d we mus t rethin k and reorien t singl e fatherhood , whil e we also acknowledg e an d value single mothers . To achieve thi s w e must sto p ignorin g th e intersections o f famil y and work . W e hav e ignore d th e impac t o n famil y structur e o f th e lack o f suppor t o f famil y responsibilities , a s wel l a s th e insidiou s impact o n famil y dynamic s o f ongoin g se x and rac e discriminatio n in th e workforce . W e trea t husband s an d wive s a s equals , inter -

XXii / I N T R O D U C T I O N

changeable, whe n thei r respectiv e labo r marke t position s ar e usuall y highly unequal . O n th e wor k side , w e continu e t o preten d tha t family responsibilitie s d o no t exist , o r virtuall y ignor e them , whil e at th e sam e time , thos e wh o tak e parentin g seriousl y ofte n fac e severe, long-ter m detriment s a t work . W e deman d tha t parent s b e invisible i n th e workplace , bu t singl e parent s stic k ou t lik e sor e thumbs. Thei r conflict s betwee n wor k an d family , however , ar e sim ply mor e eviden t an d difficul t t o avoi d tha n thos e o f two-paren t families. The y ar e harbinger s o f th e dilemma s al l familie s face . Finally, th e challeng e i s t o creat e a n ideolog y o f diversit y an d acceptance, rathe r tha n exaltin g a single famil y for m and , a s a necessary correlatio n o f tha t preference , denigratin g an y variatio n fro m that ideal . W e sometime s idoliz e an d idealiz e singl e parents , bu t fa r too ofte n th e bes t w e giv e is grudging acceptance . When m y daughte r entere d preschool , on e o f th e firs t drawing s she brough t hom e wa s he r pictur e o f ou r "family/ 7 a dazzlin g arra y of colors , lines, and shapes . When I asked who the y were , sh e name d everyone sh e kne w wh o love d her . The y wer e al l i n he r circl e o f family Sh e no w sometime s onl y draw s me , her brother , an d herself , but mor e ofte n include s he r curren t sens e o f the circl e of peopl e wh o love an d car e fo r her . Sh e compare s ou r famil y t o th e collection s o f people include d i n othe r familie s an d know s familie s ar e different , but no t becaus e o f shap e o r structure . I hop e tha t thi s boo k ma y contribute t o supportin g tha t kin d o f acceptanc e o f single-paren t families, a s wel l a s focusin g energ y an d resource s o n supportin g children i n al l families .

CHAPTER 1

The Stories of Stigma: What We Say about Single-Parent Families

A remarkabl y consisten t vie w o f single-paren t familie s dominate s popular cultur e a s well a s publi c policy . " 'Single-parent family ' i s a euphemism . . . fo r 'proble m family / fo r som e kin d o f socia l pathol ogy " (Kamerma n an d Kah n 1988). 1 Single-paren t familie s ar e char acterized a s par t o f th e "underclass" ; broke n an d deviant , a s com pared t o th e nuclear , traditional , patriarcha l family . Som e equat e th e rise i n th e number s o f single-paren t familie s wit h socia l declin e an d the deat h o f th e "real " family . Recent Republica n welfar e refor m legislatio n mirror s thi s imag e of single-paren t families , especiall y never-marrie d singl e parents . The Persona l Responsibilit y Ac t proclaim s it s goal s a s "restoring ] the America n family , [and ] reducing ] illegitimacy " (Hous e Repor t 1995). The ac t state s tha t "marriag e i s the foundatio n o f a successfu l society" an d claim s tha t "th e negativ e consequence s o f a n out-of wedlock birt h o n th e child , th e mother , an d th e societ y ar e wel l 3

4 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

documented" (Hous e Repor t 1995) . Include d i n th e act' s dat a ar e bald statement s tha t childre n o f single-paren t familie s ar e likel y t o have emotiona l o r behaviora l problems ; ar e mor e likel y themselve s as teenager s t o hav e childre n ou t o f wedlock ; ar e mor e likel y t o divorce; ar e mor e likel y t o hav e troubl e a t schoo l an d i n pee r adjust ment; an d ar e mor e likel y t o commi t crim e o r t o liv e i n a n are a plagued b y crime . Th e ac t als o include s significan t incentive s fo r states t o reduc e out-of-wedloc k births , dubbe d th e "illegitimac y bonus." Blaming singl e parent s fo r significan t societa l ill s i s by n o mean s confined t o partisan politics . Some leading advocate s o f communitar ianism, on e o f th e mos t dynami c intellectua l movement s o f recen t years, similarl y condem n singl e parentin g a s a sign o f socia l decline , and advocat e th e reviva l an d suppor t o f two-paren t familie s a s on e of th e cor e structure s o f "community " (Etzion i 1993) . I n orde r t o support two-paren t families , som e communitarian s encourag e strengthening premarita l counseling , discouragin g divorce , dissuad ing singl e wome n fro m childbearing , providin g generou s maternit y and paternit y leave , an d improvin g childcare . Ironically , the y als o advocate incentive s t o permi t one paren t t o sta y a t hom e t o rais e children (Anderso n an d Dave y 1995 , 18). Stigmatizing singl e parent s i s no t strang e i n ligh t o f dominan t legal an d socia l definition s o f family , an d th e exalte d plac e i n thos e definitions give n t o th e nuclear , marital , two-paren t famil y W e a s a society, throug h law , suppor t nuclea r marita l familie s i n significan t material an d ideologica l ways . We provide resource s includin g finan cial support , fring e benefits , ta x breaks , an d housing . W e facilitat e the us e o f reproductiv e technolog y o r adoptio n fo r favore d families . We defin e ou r visio n o f family , ideologicall y an d practically , b y ou r construction o f marriag e an d divorce , an d b y limitin g recognitio n o f nonmarital families . Law value s th e nuclear , marital , two-paren t famil y premise d o n its perceive d essentia l rol e i n th e socializatio n o f citizen s a s wel l a s its presumed inheren t wort h a s a form o f intimate association . "[W] e protect th e famil y becaus e i t contribute s s o powerfully t o th e happi ness o f individual s . . . 'th e abilit y independentl y t o defin e one' s identity tha t i s centra l t o an y concep t o f liberty ' canno t trul y b e exercised i n a vacuum; w e al l depen d o n th e 'emotiona l enrichmen t of clos e tie s wit h others ' " (Bowers v. Hardwick 1986 , quotin g Rob-

5 / The Stories of Stigma erts v. U.S. Jaycees 1984 , 619). 2 "[T]h e histori c respect—indeed , sanctity woul d no t b e to o stron g a term—traditionall y accorde d t o the relationship s tha t develo p with th e unitar y famil y . . . i s typified , of course , by th e marita l family " (Bowers v. Hardwick 1986 , n.3). The veneratio n o f th e nuclea r marita l two-paren t famil y a s cor e social organizatio n o f societ y doe s not, however , reflec t th e realit y o f family structures . It is estimated that jo percent of children will spend some time in a single-parent family before reaching age eighteen; for women entering adulthood, the probability that they will maintain a single-parent family for some period of time is 40 percent (Norto n an d Clic k 1986) . Single-paren t familie s no w consti tute 3 0 percen t o f al l familie s wit h mino r childre n an d ar e th e mos t rapidly growin g famil y for m i n Americ a (Ermisc h 1990) . Divorced o r separate d singl e parent s remai n th e larges t grou p o f single parent s (nearl y 6 0 percent] , almos t doubl e th e numbe r o f never-married singl e parent s (jus t ove r 3 0 percent) , whil e widowe d single parent s ar e a diminishing proportio n o f single-paren t familie s (not quit e 7 percent) (Burea u o f th e Censu s 1989 ; Norto n an d Clic k 1986). Mos t childre n experienc e livin g i n a single-paren t famil y a s one of severa l famil y form s durin g thei r childhood ; o n average , mos t will spen d on e t o si x year s i n a single-paren t famil y Onl y a smal l minority, abou t 1 0 percent , wil l spen d thei r entir e childhoo d i n a single-parent famil y (Duski n 1990) . The America n pictur e mirror s internationa l trends : on e o f thre e households i n th e worl d ha s a woma n a s th e sol e breadwinne r (Snyder 1991) . Th e proportio n o f single-paren t familie s i n postin dustrial countrie s average s 1 0 t o 1 5 percen t o f familie s wit h depen dent children ; th e U.S . proportio n o f nearl y 3 0 percen t represent s one o f th e highes t percentages . When famil y household s ar e analyze d b y race , single-paren t households ar e th e dominan t famil y for m fo r Africa n American s and a significan t an d growin g alternativ e famil y for m fo r Hispanic s (33 percent ) an d white s (2 3 percent) . Nearl y two-third s o f singl e parents ar e white , bu t single-paren t familie s ar e proportionatel y more prevalent amon g Blacks. Never-married singl e parents predom inate amon g Blacks , whil e divorce d singl e parent s predominat e among white s (Rawling s 1994) . Given thei r increasin g number s an d thei r remarkabl e diversity , the vehemenc e o f th e stigm a directe d agains t singl e parent s seem s

6 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

strange, i n som e respects . W e exac t a terribl e pric e fro m man y children an d their parent s because of the stigm a attache d t o this for m of family . Stigm a i s not limite d t o names an d negativ e stereotype s i n popular culture . W e impos e economi c an d psychi c penaltie s a s a matter o f socia l policy an d lega l structure . I n particular , w e continu e to consig n larg e number s o f childre n t o povert y wh o hav e th e ba d luck t o b e bor n into , o r whos e famil y becomes , wha t societ y deem s the wron g kin d o f family . Overwhelmingly, stigm a i s tie d t o th e strongl y negativ e image s we hav e o f singl e mothers. Whe n w e spea k abou t singl e parents , w e tend t o mea n a n individua l wh o i s th e sol e o r dominan t caregive r and whos e househol d i s th e plac e wher e thei r childre n liv e al l o r most o f th e time . B y tha t definitio n o f singl e parent , th e rank s are disproportionatel y female , bot h fro m a historica l an d curren t perspective. The proportion o f children living with their singl e moth ers i s 8 7 percent , compare d wit h 1 3 percen t wh o liv e wit h thei r single father s (Rawling s 1994). 3 Divorce d mothers , unmarrie d teen age mothers , welfar e mothers , wome n o f color—al l o f thes e catego ries o f singl e mother s generat e negativ e connotations . Thos e nega tive image s an d storie s infec t th e la w just a s the y infec t othe r socia l institutions, actin g a s justifications fo r punitiv e lega l outcomes . Divorced mother s ar e frequentl y criticize d a s inadequate , incom plete mothers , particularl y i f the y d o wag e wor k i n additio n t o parenting. The y fai l a s mothers becaus e the y d o not mothe r enough ; by definitio n the y ar e second-rat e parents . Singl e mothers ' succes s at being economi c providers ma y com e a t th e pric e o f losin g custod y of thei r children . Sharo n Prost , fo r example , los t custod y o f he r children t o he r forme r husband , Kennet h Greene , becaus e o f he r career a s a to p Capito l Hil l staffer . Prost , chie f counse l fo r th e Republicans o n th e Senat e Judiciar y Committee , wa s awarde d si x days o f visitatio n pe r mont h an d ordere d t o pa y $23,00 0 pe r yea r i n child support , whil e Greene , wh o als o work s full-tim e a s a unio n administrator, wa s awarde d custod y o f thei r tw o sons . Despit e th e limited visitatio n schedul e grante d i n th e custod y order , Green e ha s permitted Pros t t o hav e th e boy s overnigh t twelv e t o fourtee n time s each month , an d Pros t continue s t o driv e the m t o schoo l daily , stay s home wit h the m whe n the y ar e ill, does their laundry , attend s socce r practices, an d chaperone s thei r schoo l fiel d trips . The tria l judg e wh o determine d custod y foun d tha t Pros t ha d

7 / The Stories of Stigma failed t o mak e he r childre n he r firs t priority . "He r caree r choic e o f demanding job s tha t requir e he r t o wor k lat e night s an d man y weekends necessaril y cut s int o th e tim e availabl e fo r he r famil y . . . her devotio n t o he r jo b and/o r he r persona l pursuit s ofte n take s precedence ove r he r family " [Frost v. Greene 1995 , 624-25) . Th e court viewe d Pros t a s "drive n t o succeed " an d "absorbe d b y he r work," citin g a s evidenc e Prost' s retur n t o wor k immediatel y afte r the birt h o f he r secon d child . The court' s conclusio n tha t Green e wa s th e mor e nurturin g par ent relie d heavil y o n th e testimon y o f th e couple' s a u pair , wh o testified tha t Pros t rarel y cooke d dinne r o r at e dinne r wit h he r children. B y contrast , th e cour t mad e littl e o f Greene' s insistenc e that th e coupl e retai n a n a u pai r rathe r tha n car e fo r hi s childre n himself whe n h e was unemployed fo r tw o year s i n th e earl y 1990s . On appeal , th e appellat e cour t rejecte d argument s tha t th e tria l court's conclusion s wer e base d o n gende r stereotypes . Th e cour t remanded th e custod y decisio n onl y because the tria l cour t ha d faile d to conside r evidenc e o f domesti c violence b y Green e agains t Prost . Similar case s ar e common . Fo r example , i n Ne w York , Rene e B.' s mother los t custod y o f he r eight-year-ol d daughte r t o he r unem ployed ex-husban d o n th e basi s tha t th e father , despit e hi s repeate d refusal t o pa y chil d support , wa s bette r abl e t o car e fo r hi s daughte r because h e wa s a t hom e whil e hi s ex-wif e wa s employe d i n a n offic e (Steinbach 1995) . In Sout h Carolina , Rut h Parri s los t custod y o f he r son becaus e a judg e determine d sh e wa s "no t particularl y family oriented" [Parris v. Parris 1995) . Parris , describe d b y th e tria l cour t as a n "aggressive , competitive " rea l estat e agent , too k a yea r of f from wor k afte r he r son' s birth , wa s closel y involve d i n hi s dail y care, religiou s an d secula r education , musi c lessons, an d othe r activi ties. Nevertheless, th e judge gav e great weigh t t o the father' s domes ticity, evidence d by his cooking of weekend meals , attending hi s son' s swim meets , an d takin g hi s so n t o docto r visits . If ther e i s a n availabl e stepmothe r wh o doe s no t d o wag e work , that ma y furthe r threate n th e abilit y o f a singl e workin g mothe r t o retain custody . A two-paren t marita l famil y i s viewed a s a complet e family; a single-paren t famil y a s presumptivel y inferior . A singl e mother ma y b e require d t o replicat e th e tim e availabl e t o a mothe r working i n th e home , eve n i f tha t undercut s th e ver y wag e wor k that sh e i s require d t o d o i n orde r t o carr y he r responsibilit y o f

8 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

economic support . So , fo r instance , Stephani e Or r wa s warne d b y a mediator tha t i f sh e faile d t o rearrang e he r wor k schedul e s o as to b e home eac h da y b y 3:3 0 P.M. , sh e woul d ris k losin g custod y o f he r eight-year-old daughte r t o he r ex-husband , whos e secon d wif e wa s at hom e an d coul d car e fo r th e gir l afte r schoo l (Cren o 1995) . The stigm a directe d a t singl e mothers increase s dramaticall y whe n the mothe r ha s neve r marrie d an d eve n worse , i f sh e i s a teenager . Teenagers see m t o epitomiz e al l o f th e wors t negative s o f singl e parenting. The y ar e viewe d a s socially , economically , an d develop mentally "a t risk. " Thei r perceive d poo r judgmen t and , fo r some , immorality i n becomin g pregnan t justifie s th e greates t stigm a a s a necessary deterrenc e t o others. Most teenag e singl e mothers struggl e against nearl y insurmountabl e barrier s deliberatel y place d i n thei r path. Overcoming thos e barrier s ma y b e me t wit h alar m rathe r tha n congratulation. I n th e cas e of Jennife r Ireland , he r effort s t o obtai n a college educatio n nearl y resulte d i n losin g custod y o f he r daughter . Ireland, wh o ha d he r chil d whe n sh e wa s seventeen , wa s ordere d t o turn ove r custod y o f her three-year-ol d daughte r t o the child' s fathe r after sh e place d th e toddle r i n day-car e whil e sh e attende d classe s a t the Universit y o f Michiga n (Datelin e 1994) . Irelan d ha d file d fo r child suppor t fro m th e father , Steve n Smith , wh o countersue d fo r custody, despit e hi s lac k o f significan t involvemen t i n th e child' s lif e until th e suppor t actio n wa s brought . Macomb Count y Circui t Judg e Raymon d R . Cashe n awarde d cus tody t o th e child' s fathe r becaus e th e fathe r intende d t o hav e hi s mother, a homemaker , car e fo r th e child . Th e judg e reasone d tha t the paterna l grandmothe r woul d b e th e bes t caretake r o f th e chil d because o f he r maturit y an d availability , sinc e sh e wa s no t engage d in wag e work . Th e youn g mothe r wa s characterize d a s uncaring an d uninvolved, frequentl y pawnin g of f he r daughte r o n anyon e willin g to loo k afte r her . I n Novembe r 1995 , th e decisio n wa s reverse d an d sent bac k t o b e retrie d b y a differen t judge , wit h a n orde r tha t day care arrangement s coul d no t b e take n int o consideratio n i n de termining custod y ("Mothe r Win s Custody " 1995) . The heightene d stigm a reserve d fo r unmarrie d mother s i s als o evident i n adoptio n case s (Dow d 1994) . Th e adoptio n structur e i s designed t o facilitat e th e transfe r o f childre n fro m stigmatize d singl e mothers to , preferably , two-paren t marrie d couples . Recen t high -

9 / The Stories of Stigma profile adoptio n cases , suc h a s th e "Bab y Jessica " an d "Bab y Rich ard" cases , have no t bee n litigate d o n th e basi s o f th e right s o f singl e mothers, bu t rathe r a s a contes t betwee n biologica l an d adoptiv e couples [DeBoer v. Schmidt 1993 ; In re Kirchner 1995) . Th e unwe d mothers legitimate d themselves , a s wel l a s thei r child , b y marryin g the biologica l father s o f thei r children , wh o the n challenge d th e adoptions o n th e basi s o f th e fathers ' rights . Ironically , th e recogni tion o f th e fathers ' right s t o block the adoptio n i s consistent wit h th e devaluation o f th e judgment s o f th e mothers , bot h wit h respec t t o the origina l surrende r fo r adoptio n an d subsequen t rethinkin g o f that decision . One o f th e mos t publi c instance s o f stigm a directe d a t unmarrie d single mother s wa s the furo r ove r th e decisio n t o parent alon e by th e fictional televisio n characte r Murph y Brown . Despit e th e relativel y unusual circumstance s o f thi s singl e parent , tha t is , tha t sh e ha d a n income sufficientl y hig h tha t sh e coul d provid e no t onl y adequat e but generou s economi c suppor t fo r he r child , th e controvers y ove r her decisio n t o singl e parent reflect s th e stigm a directe d a t real singl e parents o f considerabl y les s mean s an d power . The n Vic e Presiden t Dan Quayl e strongl y attacke d th e stor y lin e a s a n affron t t o "famil y values," wit h a clea r understandin g tha t "family " exclude d thos e who d o no t paren t i n heterosexua l pair s (Rosentha l 1992) . Quayle' s subsequent prais e fo r divorce d singl e parent s serve d onl y t o under score th e distinctiv e condemnatio n o f unmarrie d singl e parents. 4 H e continued t o argu e tha t th e deliberat e choic e o f parentin g alon e wa s irresponsible an d morall y reprehensible , a s oppose d t o th e presume d involuntary singl e parentin g o f divorce d mothers . Furthermore , th e prospect tha t economicall y independen t singl e parent s migh t vie w single parentin g a s a viable choic e a s a consequence o f th e ver y kin d of work (hig h wages , full-time, demandin g hours ) tha t forma l sexua l equality guarantee d provoke d stron g mora l condemnation . The wors t image s o f singl e mothers , however , ar e no t thos e attached t o atypical , privilege d whit e women , bu t rathe r t o wome n of color . Thes e ar e wome n tha t w e rarel y name . Th e high-profil e legal stories , whic h nam e an d identif y singl e mothers , concer n mor e privileged, divorce d (usuall y white ) singl e mother s wh o hav e th e resources t o challeng e unarticulate d stereotypes . Th e powerfull y negative image s associate d wit h Blac k singl e mother s an d Blac k welfare mother s rarel y identif y individuals , bu t instea d stigmatiz e

1 0 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

the entir e clas s of Black mothers. The courts ar e far mor e rarel y use d to vindicat e th e right s o f thes e mother s b y questionin g underlyin g assumptions abou t thei r competenc y a s parents . "[I]deologues hav e continue d t o fashio n fro m whol e clot h th e specter o f th e mythica l Blac k welfare mother , complet e wit h a prodigious reproductiv e capacit y an d a gallin g laziness , accompanie d b y the uncarin g an d equall y laz y Blac k ma n i n thi s lif e wh o wil l no t work, wil l no t marr y he r an d wil l no t suppor t hi s family " (Bra y 1992). Th e dominan t culture' s vie w o f unwe d Blac k singl e mother s continues t o ech o the 196 5 Moyniha n Report : Ours is a society which presumes male leadership in private and public affairs. Th e arrangements of society facilitate suc h leadership and reward it. A subculture, such as that of the Negro American, in which this is not the pattern, is placed at a distinct disadvantage. Fatherless families ar e the root of everything from poverty , violence, drug addiction, crime and declining standards in education and civility to teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, narcissism and urban unrest. (Moyniha n 1994) According to this view, the predominance o f single-parent familie s among African American s i s cultural i n origin . The cultura l explana tion mean s tha t a n additiona l laye r o f stigm a i s lai d upo n Blac k single mothers , th e stigm a o f racia l self-destruction . The blam e place d o n singl e Blac k mother s fo r th e violenc e o f young Blac k me n durin g th e 199 2 Lo s Angeles uprisin g reflect s thi s strongly negativ e vie w o f Blac k mother s (Buckle y 1992a , 1992b ; Rosenthal 1992) . Th e targe t o f Da n Quayle' s speec h tha t include d a single referenc e t o Murph y Brow n wa s Blac k singl e mothers . " I believe th e lawles s socia l anarch y whic h w e sa w [i n L.A. ] i s directl y related t o th e breakdow n o f famil y structure , persona l responsibilit y and socia l orde r i n to o man y area s o f ou r society . . . . Childre n need lov e an d discipline . The y nee d mother s an d fathers . . . . Natur e abhors a vacuum . Whe n ther e ar e n o mature , responsibl e me n around t o teac h boy s ho w t o b e goo d men , gang s serv e i n thei r place" (Rosentha l 1992) . Th e mos t recen t welfar e refor m debat e a s well i s fille d wit h negativ e image s tha t presum e th e colo r o f th e typical welfare recipien t i s black, despit e th e fac t tha t white , divorce d women ar e th e mos t numerou s welfar e recipients . The scor n directe d a t singl e mother s ha s no t insulate d singl e fathers. Thei r failing s simpl y ar e viewe d remarkabl y differentl y

i i / The Stories of Stigma from thos e o f mothers . Althoug h singl e father s ar e praised , eve n lionized fo r parentin g i n a manne r ofte n take n fo r grante d i n th e case o f mothers , w e nevertheles s hav e mor e tha n ou r shar e o f nega tive image s o f singl e father s a s well. W e stigmatiz e singl e father s a s irresponsible reproducer s an d deadbea t dads , or render the m invisibl e fathers. The stereotyp e o f me n a s irresponsible reproducer s i s particularl y strong i n recen t high-profil e adoptio n cases . Whe n me n asser t pa rental right s i n thos e cases , the y rel y o n biolog y alone , no t o n caretaking, actua l o r potential , t o asser t thei r lega l position . The y also, generally , hav e succeede d onl y whe n the y presen t themselve s as willing no t onl y t o parent , bu t als o t o marry . Withou t th e rol e o f husband, father s ar e see n a s incapabl e caregivers , or , mor e strongly , as parents wh o routinel y abando n thei r children . Typical o f thi s paradig m i s th e "Bab y Emily " case , i n whic h th e Florida Suprem e Cour t refuse d t o revers e a n adoptiv e placemen t i n favor o f a singl e fathe r (In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W. 1995) . I n that case , th e singl e birthmothe r supporte d th e adoptiv e parent s against th e effort s b y th e biologica l fathe r t o block the adoption . Th e Court adopte d a definitio n o f fatherin g tha t required , i n additio n t o genetic connectio n an d economi c support , emotiona l suppor t o f th e mother durin g he r pregnancy . I n th e absenc e o f suc h parenting , th e father wa s deeme d t o hav e abandone d th e child , an d a s a conse quence, t o hav e forfeite d hi s righ t t o objec t t o th e adoption . Whil e the Cour t certainl y ha d adequat e reason s t o deny th e fathe r th e righ t to bloc k th e adoptio n base d o n hi s emotionall y abusiv e treatmen t o f the mother, on e can speculate whether th e choice between a n unmar ried fathe r an d a two-parent marrie d couple , supported b y th e wishe s of th e birthmother , als o weighed i n th e court' s decision . Far mor e tha n women , me n ar e viewe d a s parent s wh o se e thei r children a s their biologica l property , an d who ar e capabl e of th e mos t horrifying abuse . I n a tragi c Ne w Jerse y case , a n unmarrie d father , Alan Gubernat , bega n t o establis h a relationshi p wit h hi s so n Scot t seven month s afte r hi s birt h an d afte r paternit y wa s confirme d b y a blood tes t (Gubernat v. Deremer 1995) . Whe n informa l visitatio n broke down , th e fathe r file d fo r join t custod y i n 199 2 an d als o requested tha t hi s son' s las t nam e b e change d t o Gubernat . Th e tria l court grante d join t lega l custod y an d th e nam e change . Jus t month s before Scott' s fourt h birthday , th e Ne w Jerse y Suprem e Cour t re -

1 2 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

versed th e nam e change . Th e cour t hel d tha t th e commo n la w rul e giving father s wh o legitimate d thei r childre n thi s righ t coul d no t b e constitutionally uphel d consisten t wit h principle s o f gende r equalit y and neutrality . Severa l day s afte r th e decision , Ala n Guberna t kille d his son , an d the n committe d suicide . Althoug h n o on e know s fo r sure what drov e Gubernat t o murder an d suicide , the widely accepte d explanation wa s tha t Guberna t kille d hi s so n becaus e h e coul d no t give him hi s name , o r obtai n primar y physica l custody . Among th e stronges t negativ e image s attache d t o singl e fathers , however, i s th e imag e o f th e deadbea t dad . Whe n father s fai l a s economic providers , the y ar e currentl y viewed , a t leas t i n theory , a s being sociall y reprehensible . Whe n economicall y capabl e o f paying , their conduc t i s deeme d especiall y immora l an d justificatio n fo r harsh crimina l sanctions . A recen t exampl e i s a 47-year-ol d invest ment advisor , Jeffre y Nichols , wh o owe s ove r $500,00 0 bac k suppor t for hi s thre e children . Nichol s wa s jailed unti l h e coul d rais e a t leas t $68,000 whic h h e owe d prio r t o hi s contemp t convictio n fiv e year s earlier (Kin g 1995) . So widespread i s the lac k of economi c support , o r o f ful l economi c support, tha t th e deadbea t da d is the presume d norm . I n a 1995 Dea r Abby column , a fathe r wh o ha d consistentl y pai d hi s chil d suppor t bemoaned th e negativ e imag e o f singl e fathers , an d gratefull y thanked Abb y fo r a Father' s Da y colum n i n whic h sh e wrot e " A 2 1gun salut e t o th e divorce d fathe r wh o ha s neve r uttere d a n unkin d word abou t th e mothe r o f hi s childre n (a t leas t t o th e children ) an d who ha s alway s bee n Johnny-on-the-spo t wit h th e suppor t check " (Van Bure n 1995a) . Sai d th e dad , "M y moral e ha s bee n wor n dow n over th e year s b y th e stereotypin g o f divorce d father s a s deadbea t dads—a particularl y crue l label. " Abb y responde d b y agai n praisin g ex-husbands wh o pa y chil d support , bu t als o reinforce d th e deadbea t dad expectation . "I t woul d b e s o eas y [fo r fathers ] t o just wal k awa y and no t fulfil l th e responsibilitie s t o thei r children . Ye t you , an d many lik e you , sacrific e t o se e tha t you r childre n ar e fed , clothe d and educated . Yo u ar e t o b e commende d fo r lovin g you r childre n enough t o be a responsible father " (Va n Buren 1995a) . Two weeks later , i n a follow-u p column , Abb y acknowledge d tha t she ha d receive d muc h critica l respons e t o he r column . "Th e com mon threa d i n th e mai l I receive d wa s tha t father s wh o sen d thei r child suppor t check s withou t fai l ar e fulfillin g thei r lega l obliga -

13 / The Stories of Stigma tions—nothing else " (Va n Bure n 1995b) . On e reade r compose d a fantasy thank-yo u lette r fro m he r ex-husband , an d concluded , "Compared t o th e monumenta l tas k o f raisin g a child , ho w signifi cant i s writin g a check ? Whe n m y firs t husban d thank s m e fo r al l (that I have done) , I'l l than k hi m fo r spendin g fiv e minute s a mont h to provide chil d support " (Va n Buren 1995b) . If father s ar e no t deadbeats , the y ar e ofte n simpl y invisible . The y are stigmatize d b y no t bein g noticed , b y bein g treate d a s i f the y were no t i n th e picture . Tha t wa s literall y th e cas e i n on e stor y reported i n th e aftermat h o f th e 199 5 Oklahom a Cit y bombing . I n an issu e o f a popula r weekl y magazin e devote d t o storie s abou t th e families affecte d b y th e bombing , on e stor y feature d th e singl e mother o f tw o son s wh o die d i n th e bombed-ou t daycar e center . Identified besid e th e mothe r i n a pictur e take n a t th e children' s funeral, bu t otherwis e unacknowledge d i n th e article , wa s th e fathe r of th e children , th e mother' s ex-husband . Child developmen t researc h di d no t stud y father s at all unti l th e 1970s, an d studie s o f mother s continu e t o predominat e eve n today . Paradoxically, othe r researc h presume d tha t single-paren t familie s were detrimenta l t o children , particularl y boys , becaus e o f th e ab sence o f fathers. 5 Accordin g t o on e revie w o f th e sociologica l litera ture, studie s o f single-paren t familie s rarel y examine d thes e familie s as functiona l systems . "Th e perspectiv e o f mos t researc h . . . ap peared t o be : whe n a marriag e dissolves , th e famil y dissolves ; i f a marriage neve r starts , a famil y neve r starts " (Gongl a 1982 , 6) . Th e low economi c statu s o f single-paren t familie s rarel y appeare d a s a variable i n thes e studie s (14) . Studie s als o rarel y examine d th e na ture o r exten t o f ongoin g relationship s wit h father s no t i n th e household, an d never-marrie d father s wer e studie d eve n les s tha n divorced father s (17) . Similarly, unti l recently , psychologica l studie s simpl y presume d that single-paren t statu s explaine d psychologica l difference s an d negative traits , withou t examinin g th e basi s o f thi s presumptio n (Mednick 1987) . Strong views about appropriat e gende r role s infuse d much o f th e psychologica l research . "Th e value s tha t hav e typicall y framed researc h i n thi s are a ar e tha t legitimat e powe r an d authorit y are th e father' s role , tha t th e husban d shoul d b e th e sol e o r majo r economic provider , tha t marriag e an d famil y lif e mus t b e structure d in term s o f separat e role s an d activitie s wit h a stric t an d prope r

1 4 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

division o f labor , tha t al l othe r famil y form s ar e deviant , an d tha t single mother s ar e i n a transitional stat e anyway " (187) . In som e respects , o f course , on e coul d argu e tha t th e stigm a associated wit h singl e parentin g has declined—w e have , afte r all , changed ho w w e nam e an d identif y thes e parents . Unti l recentl y single-parent familie s wer e usuall y referre d t o a s "broken " o r "fa ther-absent" families . Nonmarita l familie s wer e no t considere d fami lies a t all ; th e onl y paren t recognize d wa s th e mother , wh o wa s labeled a n "unwe d mother, " whil e th e childre n wer e calle d "bas tards" o r "illegitimates. " W e hav e largel y shifte d fro m thi s name calling (althoug h som e conservative s continu e t o engag e i n it ) t o th e more neutra l "singl e parent " o r "single-paren t family, " althoug h n o new terminolog y ha s emerge d fo r children . Thi s ne w nam e appear s to remov e th e condemnatio n o f famil y for m an d explici t gende r reference, ye t it s meaning s an d connotation s beli e th e persistenc e o f stigma. One meanin g o f "singl e parent " i s that th e paren t i s not married . "Single" convey s "unmarried, " whethe r becaus e th e perso n neve r married o r divorce d (th e deat h o f a spous e entitle s on e t o th e mor e valued labe l o f "widow " o r "widower") . Thi s meanin g obscures , however, singl e parent s wh o canno t marry , barre d b y th e heterosex ual limitatio n o n marriage . A t th e sam e time , i t clearl y establishe s the desire d nor m o f parentin g withi n marriage . "Single" als o mean s "sole " o r "lone, " an d therefor e th e ter m "single parent " als o means on e who parent s alone , without a marita l partner. O n th e on e hand , i t suggest s a parent functionin g withou t a support network , literall y alon e an d isolated. O n th e othe r hand , thi s definition connote s a person wh o i s th e primar y o r sol e caretake r o f children, a s distinguishe d fro m th e perso n wit h parenta l statu s wh o does littl e o r n o nurturing . The mor e neutra l "parent " terminolog y arguabl y hide s men' s an d women's differin g experiences , i n general , o f singl e parenting . On e might als o argu e that , despit e it s neutrality , "singl e parent " i s ofte n understood a s synonymou s wit h "singl e mother. " Single-paren t fa thers disappea r unde r thi s presumption , whil e mothers ' parentin g i s encoded. But name s ar e th e leas t o f it . Th e stigm a w e attac h t o single parent familie s mos t significantl y result s i n economi c deprivatio n and socia l isolation . A s a society , w e continu e t o vie w tha t stigm a

15 / The Stories of Stigma and it s result s a s appropriat e an d justified . Thre e cor e justification s are use d t o rationaliz e th e vie w o f single-paren t familie s a s sic k families. First , single-paren t familie s ar e poor ; or , mor e strongly , many se e singl e parentin g a s a structura l for m tha t causes povert y and it s associate d ills . Second , single-paren t familie s ar e psychologi cally unhealthy . Th e childre n o f singl e parent s ar e developmentall y at risk , s o i t i s claimed , becaus e childre n canno t develo p normall y without tw o opposite-se x parent s i n th e household . Third , single parent familie s ar e immoral . Religiou s i n origin , bu t strongl y re flected i n secula r view s a s well, thi s justification view s single-paren t families a s sinfu l becaus e the y lac k th e blessin g an d validatio n o f marriage. Finally , beneat h thes e commonl y articulate d justification s are rac e an d gende r belief s tha t furthe r suppor t th e stigm a attache d to single-paren t familie s a s a necessar y badg e o f socia l scor n an d economic penalty . What w e kno w abou t single-paren t families , however , i s quit e different fro m th e myth s w e tel l a s "objective " justifications . I t i s t o those realitie s tha t I now turn , juxtapose d agains t th e myth s under lying thi s powerfu l stigma .

CHAPTER 2

The Realities: What We Know about Single-Parent Families

Every tim e I hav e a schoo l conferenc e I worr y abou t whethe r m y children wil l b e labeled . I f ther e i s anythin g ba d t o report , o r im provement needed , ou r famil y statu s ca n b e use d a s a convenien t explanation. "She' s fro m a single-paren t family . Ah , tha t explain s it." Whe n m y so n ha s difficult y wit h th e disciplin e a t hi s preschool , I worr y tha t h e wil l b e categorize d b y hi s famil y form , rathe r tha n evaluated an d understoo d fo r himself . I a m heartene d b y sign s tha t the diversit y o f famil y form s ar e recognize d an d valued , an d wit h every ne w teache r o r docto r o r child-car e worke r I discus s ho w important i t i s t o m e tha t ou r famil y b e acknowledge d an d sup ported. Bu t wheneve r th e clas s assignmen t i s abou t "family " I fin d myself watchful , wonderin g wha t message s wil l com e hom e thi s time. An d a s m y daughte r learn s ho w t o read , I kno w I wil l con stantly confron t stereotype s abou t th e typ e o f famil y sh e live s in . Today, fo r example , th e headlin e i n th e mornin g pape r proclaims , 16

17 / The Realities "Two-Parent Familie s Mak e Comeback , Censu s Says/ ' I n th e article , it i s note d tha t despit e a modes t increas e i n th e percentag e o f two parent families , th e numbe r o f single-paren t familie s continue s t o rise, especiall y amon g Blac k families . Thi s i s labele d b y th e exper t quoted i n th e pape r a s a "disturbing' ' trend . Ther e i s a lo t t o b e unpacked i n tha t on e word . The commo n justification s fo r stigmatizin g singl e parents—eco nomic, developmental, an d moral—together wit h underlyin g gende r and racia l beliefs , dictat e hars h deterrent s an d punitiv e consequence s for mos t single-paren t families . Wha t w e kno w abou t single-paren t families, however , contradict s th e justification s fo r stigma . I t i s su preme irony , then , tha t som e o f wha t w e kno w i s use d t o justif y these horribl e en d results . Rea l problem s ar e blame d o n singl e par ents, o n th e structur e o f family , whe n i n fac t th e structur e o f famil y should b e irrelevan t t o function . Wha t w e blam e o n singl e parent s instead ha s a grea t dea l t o d o wit h othe r factors , especiall y povert y and it s consequences . B y blamin g singl e parent s fo r thei r families ' problems, however , w e a s a society avoi d responsibilit y fo r children . It take s a powerful an d comple x mytholog y t o misunderstan d th e real problem s o f single-paren t families , an d t o sacrific e th e well being o f children . Th e willingnes s t o le t childre n suffer , an d indee d to make the m suffer , i s astounding . Sevent y percen t o f al l childre n will spen d som e o r al l o f thei r childhoo d i n single-paren t families , and w e kno w tha t th e link s betwee n childhoo d environmen t an d future succes s ar e strong . Punishin g childre n i n single-paren t fami lies i s a sacrific e tha t i s sociall y destabilizin g a s wel l a s morall y reprehensible. We als o ignor e wha t i s positiv e abou t single-paren t families . Stigma wall s of f an y recognitio n o f insight s fro m o r alternativ e familial model s exemplifie d b y single-paren t families . Single-paren t families hav e muc h t o tel l u s an d teac h u s abou t th e functionin g o f families an d thei r interactio n wit h broade r communities . What w e perpetuate , then , ar e myths , undeniabl y powerfu l bu t manifestly false . I n this chapte r I address eac h of th e primar y justifi cations fo r stigmatizin g singl e parent s i n ligh t o f th e realitie s o f what w e kno w abou t singl e parents . I als o expos e th e underlyin g race and gende r myth s tha t justify stigm a a s well.

l8/

MYTH S & REALITIE S

THE POVERT Y JUSTIFICATIO N Myth: Single Parents Cause Poverty, Thus Harming Their Children Single parent s ar e ofte n mentione d i n th e sam e breat h a s othe r leading cause s o f poverty . Th e 199 1 report o f th e Nationa l Commis sion o n Childre n states , fo r example , "I f w e measure succes s no t jus t by how well most childre n do , but by how poorly som e fare, Americ a falls fa r short . On e i n fou r childre n i s raise d b y jus t on e parent . . . . Children livin g wit h thei r mother s ar e especiall y likel y t o b e poor " (Final Report 1991 , 24). 1 As on e schola r ha s lamented , "povert y ha s been artfull y reconfigure d a s a social/cultural/psychologica l pathol ogy, corroborate d b y a public educationa l discours e o f deficienc y an d remediation" (Polako w 1993) . I n othe r words , povert y i s du e t o a n individual lac k o f responsibility , motivation , an d discipline . Individual blam e ha s shifted , ove r time , fro m me n t o women . Explanations o f th e cause s o f povert y hav e gon e fro m blamin g indi vidual pathology , presume d t o b e male , t o blamin g th e "cultur e o f poverty," t o blamin g th e cultur e o f singl e motherhoo d (Thoma s 1994). Poverty explanation s bega n wit h notion s o f individua l failure . Oscar Lewi s popularize d th e notio n o f a cultur e o f poverty , tha t is , that povert y wa s no t merel y a n economi c descriptio n bu t a wa y o f life. Lewi s worrie d tha t hi s descriptio n migh t b e abused , tha t th e poor woul d b e blame d rathe r tha n helpe d b y hi s analysis . H e wa s right. Subsequen t researcher s focuse d o n th e mean s o f transmissio n of thi s culture , an d bega n t o argu e tha t althoug h me n wer e predis posed t o povert y pathology , i t wa s wome n wh o transmitte d thi s pathology intergenerationally . Fro m tha t observatio n i t wa s a n eas y step t o begi n t o attac k th e cultur e o f singl e motherhood , whic h i s now hel d accountabl e fo r povert y an d it s associate d ills . The assumptio n tha t underlie s thi s vie w i s tha t th e choice s o f single mother s i n povert y ar e freel y mad e choices . I f the y mad e better choice s (wit h th e clearl y preferre d choic e bein g marriage , no t economic self-sufficiency) , the y woul d no t b e i n thi s bind . Th e negative economi c consequences o f marriage fo r wome n ar e ignored . So too are structura l problem s tha t affec t th e marital choice s of Black women particularl y harshly . Singl e mothers , accordin g t o thi s view , are mora l an d economi c hazard s tha t produc e developmentall y im paired children .

19 / The Realities There i s n o doub t tha t single-paren t familie s ar e disproportion ately poor . O n average , single-paren t famil y incom e i s onl y 4 0 per cent a s muc h a s th e averag e incom e o f two-paren t familie s (Dunca n and Rodger s 1990 , 53). One o f ever y tw o singl e mother s live s belo w the povert y lin e (McLanaha n an d Boot h 1989 , 558). Hal f o f ou r poo r children ar e in single-paren t familie s (Ellwoo d 1988) . Although female-heade d household s constitut e onl y abou t 1 0 percent o f al l households , the y accoun t fo r nearl y on e thir d o f th e poverty populatio n (Handle r 1994 , 17) . Th e majorit y o f female headed familie s (5 3 percent) ar e poor (Rawling s 1994 ; Handler 1994) . Among Blac k single-paren t families , nearl y 6 0 percent ar e below th e poverty lin e (Nationa l Researc h Counci l 1991) . Th e differentia l i n the povert y rate s o f whit e versu s Blac k singl e mother s i s attribute d to th e fac t tha t whit e mother s ar e mor e likel y t o b e employed , an d when employed , bette r paid . Bu t eve n a t best , mos t female-heade d families ar e low-incom e families , eve n i f the y ar e no t belo w th e poverty line ; th e averag e incom e o f workin g singl e parent s i s les s than hal f tha t o f th e averag e two-paren t famil y an d i s lower stil l fo r nonworking singl e mothers , virtuall y al l o f who m ar e livin g belo w the povert y leve l (Nationa l Researc h Counci l 1990 , 26) . Media n income i n 198 8 fo r unemploye d mother-onl y familie s wa s $5,211 ; for employe d mothers , i t wa s approximatel y $15,000 . Th e 199 0 poverty lin e fo r a family o f on e adul t an d tw o childre n wa s $10,419 ; the averag e incom e o f poo r female-heade d familie s i n 199 0 wa s roughly $4,50 0 (Burtles s 1992) . If th e economi c circumstance s o f thes e familie s wer e assesse d more realistically , th e rat e o f povert y woul d b e eve n worse . Th e federal povert y lin e i s a n inadequat e reflectio n o f rea l economi c needs. Som e economist s hav e suggeste d tha t a basi c need s budge t (BNB), whic h take s int o consideratio n expenditure s fo r chil d care , transportation, an d direc t taxes , i s a mor e accurat e reflectio n o f household need s (Renwic k an d Bergman n 1993) . Based o n thi s mor e comprehensive an d sophisticate d criterion , singl e parent s wh o ar e working full-tim e year-roun d job s (th e singl e parent s w e woul d imagine t o b e doin g well ) hav e significantl y higher-than-officia l poverty counts : th e BN B rat e i s 2 3 percent , compare d t o th e 9 percent officia l count . The fixe d cost s o f raisin g a famil y ar e expensive , an d continu e t o rise a s children remai n dependen t o n thei r parent s fo r longe r period s of tim e i n orde r t o obtai n th e educatio n an d experienc e necessar y t o

2 0 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

become self-sufficient . Housin g i s the larges t expenditur e fo r single mother an d married-coupl e families , rangin g fro m 2 5 percen t o f income fo r marrie d couple s t o 34 percent fo r neve r marrie d mothers . The hig h cos t o f housin g force s man y singl e mother s t o liv e i n extended households . Foo d i s th e nex t larges t expens e fo r single mother familie s (Lin o 1994 , 31) . Th e cos t o f chil d car e i s anothe r significant expense , an d act s a s a stron g disincentiv e t o doin g wag e work. A n employe d paren t o f tw o preschool-ag e childre n need s goods an d service s that cos t 58 percent mor e tha n a parent wh o stay s out o f th e labo r forc e (Mednic k 1987) . Despite thes e appallin g statistic s o f poverty i n single-paren t fami lies, mor e childhoo d povert y occur s withi n two-paren t familie s (Duncan an d Rodger s 1990 , 53) . Childre n ar e th e fastes t growin g segment o f th e populatio n i n poverty . Nearl y a quarte r o f al l U.S . children ar e livin g belo w th e povert y line , a n increas e o f nearl y on e million sinc e 199 0 (Handle r 1994) . A significan t proportio n o f two parent families , includin g th e workin g poor , ar e belo w th e povert y line. Povert y fo r childre n ha s increase d dramaticall y i n both two and one-paren t families . Furthermore, th e economi c pligh t o f Africa n America n childre n confirms tha t a two-paren t famil y structur e doe s no t preclud e pov erty. Blac k childre n o n averag e ar e poore r tha n whit e children , whether i n single - o r two-paren t families . Th e racia l differentia l cannot b e explaine d b y famil y structur e (Handle r 1994). 2 In orde r t o mak e i t economically , accordin g t o on e 199 0 study , a single paren t workin g ful l tim e wit h preschoo l childre n an d healt h benefits neede d a n hourly wag e o f abou t $8.7 0 (Dunca n an d Rodger s 1990). Tha t i s a n unattainabl e goa l fo r man y wag e workers . Almos t one-third o f al l jobs d o no t pa y wage s sufficien t t o suppor t a famil y above th e povert y lin e (Mea d 1988 , 62) . Th e proble m facin g singl e parents i s inadequate income , no t lac k o f o r refusa l t o work. I t i s no t bad choice-making , bu t rathe r a lack o f viable choices . The difficulty o f supporting a family o n one income is exacerbate d for singl e mother s du e t o gender an d rac e discrimination i n th e wag e labor market . Lik e mos t women , singl e mother s mos t frequentl y work i n servic e an d blue-colla r jobs . Th e lo w earnin g capacit y o f women's work , couple d wit h continuin g jo b segregation , ar e funda mental source s o f th e problem . I n 1990 , median weekl y earning s fo r women wer e $381 , an d fo r wome n maintainin g families , $37 0 pe r

21 / The Realities week; fo r men , th e correspondin g figure s wer e $50 5 for al l men, an d $451 for me n maintainin g familie s (Burea u o f th e Censu s 1993 , 19). White wome n ar e mor e likel y t o obtai n better-paying , mor e stabl e jobs tha n ar e women o f colo r (Amot t 1988 , 99-102; Schult z 1990) . The impac t o f childre n o n earnin g capacit y als o i s strongl y nega tive. No t onl y i s th e rang e o f job s compatibl e wit h child-rearin g limited, bu t an y absenc e fro m th e workforce , whethe r a temporar y full-time interruption , o r a longer-ter m full - o r part-tim e interrup tion, dramaticall y affect s lifetim e jo b opportunitie s an d earning s (Dowd 1989a ; Dow d 1990) . I n addition , man y singl e mother s ar e younger women , becaus e o f th e youn g averag e ag e of never-marrie d mothers an d th e highe r divorc e rat e amon g couple s wh o marr y young. Youn g single mothers ar e less likely t o have a good educatio n (many hav e no t complete d hig h school ) o r jo b experience , whic h relegates the m t o lo w payin g job s withi n th e rang e o f jobs availabl e to women i n general . Single-parent povert y persists , then , despit e stron g labo r forc e attachment. Nearl y 8 0 percen t o f singl e mother s ar e i n th e pai d workforce (Rawling s 1994) . Approximately 1 6 percen t o f th e femal e workforce i s divorced , separated , o r widowed . U p t o a thir d o f al l employees ma y b e singl e parent s a t som e poin t i n thei r wor k lif e (Burden 1986) . In spit e o f thi s stron g workforc e commitment , singl e mothers ar e unabl e t o translat e employmen t int o economi c self sufficiency (Mednic k 1987 , 187) . Th e gende r facto r i s eviden t whe n incomes ar e compare d betwee n mother s an d father s wh o hav e sol e or primar y custody : $y percen t o f mother-onl y home s surviv e o n incomes belo w $15,000 , whil e onl y 3 0 percen t o f father-onl y home s do. Nearly 4 6 percent o f father-onl y home s hav e a n incom e betwee n $15,000 an d $40,000 ; onl y 3 9 percen t o f mother-onl y home s d o (Bureau o f Censu s 1994) . In addition , man y singl e parents wor k onl y part-tim e o r no t a t al l due t o insufficien t chil d car e an d th e failur e o f employer s t o provid e health insuranc e benefits . O f th e tota l numbe r o f employe d mother s with childre n unde r ag e thirteen, approximatel y 7 0 percent wor k ful l time; 8 0 percen t o f singl e mother s wit h childre n i n tha t ag e grou p work full-time , a highe r proportio n tha n marrie d wome n (McLana han an d Boot h 1989 , 559; Chamallas 1986 ; National Researc h Coun cil 1990 , 21) . Th e cos t o f chil d car e i s prohibitiv e fo r man y singl e parents an d a significan t barrie r t o employment , particularl y i f i t i s

22 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

partially offse t onl y b y a low-wag e job . "Th e lac k o f chil d car e clearly keep s som e wome n fro m workin g a t al l an d inhibit s thei r ability t o pursu e educatio n o r jo b training . Poorl y educate d wome n with littl e wor k experienc e ear n lo w wages, an d unles s the y ca n fin d subsidized, affordable , o r fre e chil d care , employmen t ma y no t mak e economic sens e t o them " (Nationa l Researc h Counci l 1990 , 3 4 35; Dow d 1993) . Fo r singl e mother s wh o qualif y fo r Medicaid , th e unavailability o f healt h insurance , o r th e failur e t o insur e depen dents, i s anothe r critica l deterren t t o employment , sinc e the y wil l eventually los e Medicai d i f the y tak e a job. Healt h insuranc e i s les s likely t o b e availabl e i n low-wag e jobs ; hal f o f worker s wit h famil y incomes belo w th e povert y leve l ar e uninsured (Petti t 1993) . Employment incom e could , o f course , b e supplemente d wit h con tributions fro m th e othe r paren t (no t i n al l cases , but i n many ) and / or publi c suppor t administere d b y th e state . Th e inadequac y o f private an d publi c incom e transfers , however , compoun d labo r mar ket problems . Privat e incom e transfers , redistributin g incom e fro m one paren t t o another , consis t primaril y o f chil d support , a s alimon y is rarel y awarded . Chil d suppor t play s a relatively mino r rol e i n th e income structur e o f single-paren t families . Nearl y two-third s o f parents with custod y receiv e no child support (Bergman n 1986 , 245). Only si x o f te n eligibl e mother s hav e a n awar d (Garfinke l e t al . 1994, 85-86) , an d o f thos e wh o do , a significan t proportio n receiv e no payment s o r les s tha n ful l payment , despit e conservativ e esti mates tha t a t leas t 6 0 percen t o f absen t parent s coul d affor d t o pa y (Roberts 1991 , 868). Eve n i f ful l paymen t wer e made , however , th e bulk o f single-paren t famil y povert y woul d remai n untouched . A s Irwin Garfinkel , th e note d welfar e expert , ha s concluded , "eve n i f the maximu m coul d b e achieved , i t woul d leav e unsolve d three quarters o f th e povert y an d dependenc y problem . Supplementin g private suppor t wit h a n assure d public , child-suppor t benefi t woul d solve onl y abou t hal f th e problem . T o com e clos e t o eliminatin g poverty an d dependenc e require s goin g beyon d chil d suppor t alone " (Garfinkel an d Won g 1990 , 101) . Even t o th e exten t tha t chil d suppor t coul d assis t single-paren t families, however , th e lega l structur e doe s no t guarante e eithe r a n automatic righ t t o suc h suppor t (i t mus t b e legall y sought , individu ally monitored , an d collected) , no r doe s th e stat e guarantee , replace , or supplemen t an y portio n o r th e tota l o f suppor t unles s th e individ -

23 / The Realities ual qualifie s fo r welfare . Unde r th e 198 8 Famil y Suppor t Act , state s must provid e fo r chil d suppor t collectio n throug h immediat e wag e withholding unless both parents agree to an alternative arrangement or a court finds good cause for not ordering it. Allowin g fo r private agreemen t t o bypas s mandator y wag e withholdin g ma y prove t o b e onl y a ne w weapo n i n th e divorc e wars . Allowin g cour t override ma y invit e th e abus e o f judicia l discretio n s o heavil y criti cized in divorc e proceedings . Public income transfers , redistributin g ta x revenue s t o thos e wit h economic needs , fa r outweig h privat e transfer s a s source s o f single parent income . Fifty-fiv e percen t o f never-marrie d mother s receiv e AFDC; 2 0 percen t o f divorce d an d separate d mother s receiv e AFDC ; and 65 percent o f widow s receiv e socia l securit y (Lin o 1994 , 31). The highes t proportio n o f singl e parent s t o receiv e publi c trans fers ar e widows/widowers wh o receiv e Survivor' s Insuranc e Benefits , the mos t generou s benefit s pai d t o singl e parents . Whit e widow s receive th e larges t shar e o f benefits. Ninet y percen t o f white widows , but onl y 7 0 percen t o f Blac k widows , receiv e Survivor' s Insuranc e (Garfinkel an d McLanaha n 1986 , 26) . Th e spous e o f a full y insure d worker carin g fo r a n eligibl e chil d unde r th e ag e o f sixtee n ma y collect benefit s se t a t 7 5 percen t o f th e amoun t th e worke r woul d have receive d ha d he retired . Whe n th e youngest chil d turns sixteen , the widow/widower's benefit s ar e terminated, althoug h th e chil d wil l continue t o collec t benefit s unti l eightee n o r ninetee n year s o f age . At ag e sixty , th e widow/widowe r agai n ha s acces s to Socia l Security ; the benefit i s 100 percent o f th e amoun t whic h woul d hav e been pai d had th e decease d worke r live d t o th e ag e o f retirement . Th e amoun t of th e benefi t i s base d o n th e amoun t a n employe e earn s throug h employment, s o thos e wh o ear n th e mos t ge t th e most , u p t o th e benefit ca p (O'Connel l 1993 , 1481, 1491). Death benefit s t o childre n ar e substantiall y highe r tha n AFD C benefits; o n average , th e deat h benefi t i s doubl e th e AFD C benefit. 3 Not surprisingly , th e povert y rat e amon g widow s i s approximatel y half tha t o f singl e mother s o n welfare . I n 1994 , th e before-ta x income o f widow s average d $22,790 ; divorce d o r separate d wome n $18,580; an d never-marrie d mother s $9,82 0 (Lin o 1994 , 31) . Onl y one i n fift y single-paren t familie s ar e le d b y a singl e mothe r ove r age thirty wit h a before-tax incom e o f mor e tha n $30,000 . Welfare benefit s nevertheles s ar e fa r mor e pervasiv e i n th e in -

2 4 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

come structur e o f single-paren t familie s tha n ar e widows ' benefits . Twenty-three percen t o f whit e an d 3 4 percen t o f Blac k divorce d women receiv e welfare , whil e 4 0 percen t o f whit e an d 5 9 percen t o f Black never-married wome n receiv e welfare (Garfinke l an d McLana han 1986 , 26) . Divorced wome n hea d th e majorit y o f household s o n welfare, whic h i s no t surprisin g i n vie w o f th e large r numbe r o f single-parent household s create d b y divorce . Roughl y hal f o f al l children i n female-heade d household s receiv e AFD C (Garfinke l an d Wong 1990 , 107) . Jus t ove r 1 0 percen t o f household s o n AFD C receive financia l suppor t fro m absen t parents . Single parent s wh o tur n t o welfar e ofte n d o no t escap e poverty , however. I n a larg e majorit y o f states , th e stat e doe s no t provid e benefits sufficien t t o mee t it s ow n definitio n o f need . I n mos t states , the combinatio n o f AFDC , Medicaid , an d foo d stamp s provide s a benefit tha t i s onl y 7 0 percent o f th e federa l povert y leve l (Commit tee o n Way s an d Mean s 1992) . Th e differenc e betwee n th e leve l o f welfare benefit s an d a minimal leve l o f nee d canno t b e me t b y wag e work beyon d a minimal amoun t withou t sacrificin g welfar e benefits ; in man y household s th e differenc e i s made up by work of f th e books, which jeopardizes benefit s an d constitute s welfar e fraud . Finding wor k tha t generate s sufficien t incom e t o leav e welfare , however, i s daunting . Singl e mother s wit h job s receiv e fewe r non cash benefit s lik e foo d stamp s an d Medicai d tha n singl e mother s without job s (Renwic k an d Bergman n 1993) . Ever y dolla r earne d i s deducted fro m welfar e (Ellwoo d 1988) . A minimum-wag e jo b i s no t sufficient t o replac e welfare benefits . I n eve n th e bes t o f programs t o assist welfare recipient s t o fin d permanen t work , participant s di d no t make muc h mor e tha n i f the y ha d staye d o n welfare . I n a Florid a study, participant s earne d onl y $15 7 mor e annuall y tha n i f the y ha d stayed o n welfare (Stanfiel d 1994) . In additio n the y ma y los e Medic aid, a critica l benefi t to o importan t t o sacrifice . Becaus e wag e wor k is no t additive , an d benefit s availabl e o n AFDC , especiall y healt h insurance, ma y no t b e availabl e i n th e workplace , th e incentiv e i s t o remain o n AFD C rathe r tha n becom e self-supportin g throug h mar ket work . Furthermore , expense s associate d wit h working , suc h a s transportation costs , clothin g costs , an d los t tim e availabl e fo r othe r responsibilities associate d wit h chil d rearin g ca n b e monumental . Without resource s t o pa y fo r th e additiona l expense s o r a suppor t structure i n place , a n incom e equivalen t t o o r no t muc h highe r tha n

25 / The Realities welfare benefit s i s n o gain , precisel y becaus e o f thes e additiona l expenses an d taxe s associate d wit h wag e work . Despite flaw s i n th e welfar e structur e whic h see m designe d t o maintain single-paren t household s i n povert y an d o n welfare, hal f o f the single-paren t household s o n welfar e leav e withi n tw o years , an d over 6 0 percen t leav e withi n thre e year s (Handle r 1994) . However , three-quarters o f thos e wh o leav e eventuall y return , almos t hal f within on e year (DeParl e 1994) . Approximately 4 0 percent o f single parent familie s cycl e o n an d of f welfar e i n thi s fashion . However , only 1 8 percen t ar e long-ter m recipients , define d a s dependen t o n AFDC fo r fiv e year s o r more . Single-paren t familie s wh o remai n o n welfare ove r a longe r perio d reflec t th e labo r marke t disadvantage s of immaturity , youn g children , lac k o f education , an d lac k o f wag e work experience . Th e mos t likel y candidat e fo r long-ter m welfar e i s a teenag e mother , withou t a hig h schoo l education , wit h littl e o r n o work experience , an d wit h a youn g chil d (o r children ) unde r th e age(s) o f thre e (DeParl e 1994) . In sum , incom e transfer s t o supplemen t employmen t earning s ar e wholly inadequate . Privat e incom e transfers , primaril y i n th e for m of chil d support , remai n uncertain , difficul t t o collect , an d inade quate. Publi c transfers, throug h th e welfar e system , ar e bedeviled b y policy contradiction s tha t see m t o penalize employment . Th e bul k o f family incom e i n single-paren t familie s continue s t o com e fro m employment (McLanaha n an d Boot h 1989 , 559) . Ove r time , th e importance o f incom e fro m (inadequate ) pai d employmen t increases , as alternativ e source s o f incom e (chil d suppor t o r welfare ) decline , due t o lac k o f paymen t o r lac k o f adjustmen t t o changin g economi c conditions.4 The consequence s o f povert y fo r single-paren t familie s ar e pre dictable. Poverty ha s well-establishe d detrimenta l effect s o n childre n and parents . I t ha s negativ e an d ofte n life-lon g consequence s fo r children's futur e employment , education , occupationa l class , health , and self-satisfaction/self-esteem . Lo w incom e i s th e stronges t pre dictor tha t a chil d wil l dro p ou t o f school . Povert y beget s a lac k o f education, which , i n Catc h 2 2 fashion , furthe r entrenche s povert y from generatio n t o generation (L i and Wojtkiewicz 1992) . The corre lation i s hig h betwee n povert y an d negativ e behaviora l conse quences: early schoo l failure , violenc e an d adolescen t problems , poo r physical an d menta l health , brai n dysfunctions , substanc e abuse ,

2 6 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

delinquency crime , earl y sex , pregnancy , an d poo r schoo l perfor mance ar e al l associate d wit h povert y A s on e commentato r bluntl y puts it , "povert y i s th e numbe r on e kille r o f childre n i n th e U.S.A . Murder b y malfeasance " (Funiciell o 1990) . Ther e als o i s evidenc e that childre n o f poverty perceiv e their parent s negativel y an d engag e in proble m behavior , includin g delinquenc y (Siega l 1985 ; Adams e t al. 1984 , 214) . A recen t compilatio n o f studie s o n single-paren t familie s b y Sar a McLanahan an d Gar y Sandefu r (1994 ) conclude s tha t th e negativ e outcomes suffere d b y childre n i n single-paren t familie s ar e strongl y associated wit h poverty . The y estimat e hal f o f th e disadvantag e suf fered b y childre n i n single-paren t familie s a s compare d t o childre n from two-paren t familie s i s tied t o low income. They identif y "inad equate parenta l guidanc e an d attention " an d "lac k o f tie s t o commu nity resources, " wha t i n combinatio n the y cal l "socia l capital, " a s responsible fo r mos t o f th e remainin g disadvantage . Ye t incom e turns ou t t o b e a stron g facto r i n socia l capita l a s well . Communit y disruption i s strongl y tie d t o residentia l move s triggere d b y lo w income o r a drop i n income . Supervisio n an d attentio n fro m parent s is als o income-connected , i n term s o f parenta l stres s an d th e abilit y to afford qualit y pai d caregivers . Thus, while McLanaha n an d Sande fur connec t socia l capita l deficit s t o fathers ' absence s fro m house holds, the socia l deficits ar e strongly economicall y determined . Thus , not surprisingly , whil e the y mak e a stron g cas e fo r th e correlation between fathers ' absence s an d children' s disadvantages , the y d o no t argue famil y structur e i s th e cause o f th e disadvantages . "Whil e living wit h jus t on e paren t increase s th e ris k o f eac h o f thes e nega tive outcomes , i t i s no t th e only , o r major , caus e o f them " (McLana han an d Sandefu r 1994 , 2). For parents , povert y affect s psychologica l well-being , whic h im pacts upon th e parent-child relationshi p i n a variety o f ways. Povert y correlates wit h greate r parenta l anxiety , emotiona l stress , interper sonal conflict, an d more harsh an d inconsistent punishmen t (Handle r 1994). "Unemploymen t i s ofte n accompanie d b y a significan t pro pensity towar d menta l illness , depression , an d eve n suicide " (Siega l 1985, 12) . Poo r parent s ar e stresse d parents . Povert y translate s int o a constan t successio n o f externa l stresses , includin g managin g an d retaining adequat e housing , employment , an d chil d care . Stresse d parents ofte n tak e ou t thei r stres s o n thei r childre n (10) . Thes e

27 / The Realities negative parentin g consequence s ar e als o mor e ofte n directe d a t younger children . Studies indicat e tha t impoverishe d me n suffe r wors e menta l health problem s tha n women , becaus e poverty mean s tha t the y hav e failed t o fulfil l th e stereotypica l mal e rol e o f economi c provide r (Siegal 1985 , 9 ; Gilber t an d Rachli n 1987 , 15 ; Rodman an d Safilios Rothschild 1984 , 63) . Similarly , studie s als o indicat e tha t boy s ar e strongly affecte d b y a father's inabilit y t o be a good breadwinner. 5 Single-parent familie s fac e a n arra y o f rea l an d significan t eco nomic problems . Bu t th e povert y o f single-paren t familie s i s no t a given; i t i s made . Famil y for m i s a caus e o f povert y onl y i f w e ar e willing t o sa y tha t povert y i s "chosen " whe n famil y for m deviate s from th e standar d o f a two-paren t heterosexua l family . I n practice , gender discriminatio n i n th e wag e labo r market , a s wel l a s insuffi cient an d inefficien t privat e an d publi c suppor t mechanism s disad vantage singl e mothers . Th e rat e o f labo r forc e participatio n fo r single parent s i s high, bu t discriminator y wag e rates , continuin g se x segregation i n jobs , an d structura l constraint s agains t combinin g work an d famil y prevalen t i n muc h o f th e wag e labo r marke t strongly disadvantag e single-paren t families . They ar e further disad vantaged b y a n unwillingnes s t o mandat e chil d suppor t o r provid e meaningful famil y suppor t outsid e patriarchal structures . The stigm a perspective view s irresponsibl e choic e makin g a s th e sourc e o f pov erty an d it s relate d socia l ills . Thi s perspectiv e conceal s economi c inequalities an d dee p structura l problem s fo r al l familie s i n th e economy.

THE DEVELOPMENTA L JUSTIFICATIO N Myth: Children

Need

a Father

Just a s widesprea d a s th e myt h tha t singl e parent s caus e povert y i s the myt h tha t singl e parent s ar e b y definitio n deviant , inadequat e parents, unable t o provide necessary parentin g fo r th e healthy devel opment o f thei r children . Ever y chil d need s tw o parents . Becaus e women predominat e a s single-paren t caretakers , thi s i s ofte n articu lated i n gender-specifi c terms : "ever y chil d need s a father/ ' Th e developmental justificatio n emphasize s th e ke y rol e o f tw o hetero -

2 8 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

sexual parent s i n health y chil d development . Researcher s lin k fathe r absence to poor academi c performance, inappropriat e sex-rol e behav ior, juvenile delinquency , an d menta l illness . The assumptio n tha t father s ar e essentia l t o health y chil d devel opment ha s had stron g academic appeal. In the 1960s , social scientist s published a wav e o f "father-absence " studie s emphasizin g th e fa ther's rol e an d th e detrimen t t o sex-rol e development , academi c performance, an d mora l developmen t du e t o fathers ' absence s i n single-parent families . Premise d o n th e theorie s o f sociologis t Talcot t Parsons, wh o believe d tha t mother s an d father s playe d clear , distinc t roles i n th e family , thes e studie s viewe d father s a s "instrumental/ 7 responsible fo r developin g th e family' s relationship s wit h th e exter nal world, i n star k contras t t o mothers' internal , "expressive " roles . Critics o f Parson s hav e pointe d ou t tha t father s ca n hardl y b e deemed critica l whe n traditiona l father s typicall y wer e formall y present bu t functionall y absen t i n man y families . I n addition , chil dren i n stepfathe r familie s d o no t d o muc h bette r emotionall y an d developmentally tha n thos e raise d i n single-mothe r familie s (Bronstein e t al . 1993 , 268-J6). Th e confoundin g trouble s o f step families directl y contradic t th e two-is-better-than-on e notion , o r th e belief tha t a father-in-the-house i s essential t o healthy development . Indeed, McLanaha n an d Sandefur' s compariso n o f single-paren t an d two-parent familie s classifie d stepfamilie s (an d thei r negativ e out comes) wit h single-paren t families , implicitl y acknowledgin g tha t a heterosexual marrie d pai r i s not th e ke y to successfu l chil d outcome s (McLanahan an d Sandefu r 1994) . Whil e som e migh t argu e tha t th e lack o f a direc t geneti c connectio n explain s unsuccessfu l fatherin g (Blankenhorn 1995) , I suspect tha t th e difficultie s o f stepparenthoo d reflect th e difficul t an d sensitiv e emotional interweaving s o f multipl e parenthood a s wel l a s th e balancin g o f partne r an d chil d tie s i n blended families . Parsons's theorie s als o ignore d th e impac t o f othe r factors , espe cially clas s an d income , whic h migh t hav e equa l o r greate r bearin g on chil d development . Bu t perhap s mos t significantly , Parsons ' vie w of appropriat e gende r role s i s contradicte d b y wha t w e kno w abou t parenting. Goo d parentin g i s no t sex-specifi c no r sex-related . Al though th e attribute s o f goo d parenting ar e more strongl y associate d with traditiona l an d moder n view s o f mothering , thi s connectio n i s cultural, no t biological . Whe n me n hav e bee n primar y parents , b y

29 / The Realities choice o r b y circumstances , the y hav e parente d a s wel l a s women , and similarl y t o women . A s w e mov e towar d a mor e androgynou s model o f parenting , th e notio n tha t me n as men ar e essentia l t o healthy chil d developmen t i s unsupported . I t i s particularl y absur d to clai m tha t father s ar e essentia l fo r parenting , apar t fro m thei r income, when mos t parentin g i n two-paren t familie s continue s t o b e done by mothers . Nevertheless, th e clai m tha t father s ar e essentia l remain s power ful. Th e empirica l evidenc e support s correlatio n bu t no t causatio n between fathe r absenc e an d children' s difficultie s o r lac k o f success , and muc h o f that , a s I hav e alread y argued , connect s economics , not th e absenc e o f a developmentall y require d father . Alternatively , proponents o f th e essentia l natur e o f father s ar e force d t o mak e increasingly tenuou s argument s i n th e fac e o f th e accumulate d evi dence o f ho w me n fathe r an d ho w childre n develop . Fo r example , David Blankenhor n (1995) , on e o f th e stronges t advocate s fo r th e essential rol e o f fathers , argue s tha t father s ar e th e linchpi n o f families an d therefor e o f society . Denyin g father s thei r critical , unique roles , then , i s tantamoun t t o socia l suicide . Blankenhor n argues less , however , tha t father s hav e somethin g uniqu e t o offe r children, tha n h e argue s tha t fatherhoo d i s essentia l t o a positiv e social rol e fo r men. Althoug h h e assert s tha t perhap s th e mos t important thin g tha t father s contribut e t o thei r childre n i s "paterna l cultural transmission/ ' whic h h e describe s a s a father' s "distinctiv e capacity t o contribut e t o th e identity , character , an d competenc e o f his children, " h e doe s littl e t o suppor t thi s bal d assertio n (25) . Rather, Blankenhor n doe s much t o argu e th e importanc e o f a uniqu e role fo r men , o r a belie f i n thei r ow n uniqueness , s o tha t me n wil l be responsible fo r thei r children . In Blankenhorn' s ow n words , Fatherhood is a social role that obligates men to their biological offspring. For two reasons, it is society's most important role for men . First, fatherhood, mor e than any other male activity, helps men to become good men: more likely to obey the law, to be good citizens,and to think about the needs of others. Put more abstractly, fatherhoo d bends maleness—in particular, male aggression—toward prosocia l purposes. Second, fatherhood privilege s children. In this respect, fa therhood is a social invention designe d to supplement maternal investment in children with paternal investment in children. . . . For society, the primary results of fatherhood ar e right-doing

3 0 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

males and better outcomes for children. Conversely, the primary consequences of fatherlessness ar e rising male violence and declining child well-being. . . . As a social role, the deepest purpose of fatherhood i s to socialize men by obligating them to their children . . . . Th e fatherhood stor y is the irreplaceable basis of a culture's most urgent imperative: the socialization of males. More than any other cultural invention, father hood guides men away from violenc e by fastening thei r behavior to a fundamental socia l purpose. (Blankenhorn 1995 , 25, 26, and 65) It i s essentia l t o Blankenhorn' s positio n t o accep t hi s vie w tha t men ar e violent, self-centered , individualistic , an d materialistic . Fur ther, on e mus t se e fatherhoo d a s necessaril y highl y gendere d t o convince me n tha t the y posses s uniqu e abilitie s a s father s whic h children nee d fo r successfu l developmen t an d t o comba t men' s nega tive predispositions . Androgenou s parentin g mean s n o essential , unique role , an d therefor e th e inabilit y t o persuad e me n tha t ther e is a valu e t o "right-doing/ ' a s wel l a s th e danger , accordin g t o Blankenhorn, tha t societ y will write of f father s a s useless an d unnec essary. Not surprisingly , then , Blankenhor n no t onl y decrie s pattern s of paterna l abandonment , h e als o attack s paterna l involvemen t premised o n th e propositio n tha t parentin g i s not gende r defined . H e criticizes an d demolishe s "th e Ne w Father/ ' th e sensitive , caring , involved father , becaus e th e Ne w Fathe r look s to o muc h lik e a fathe r who ha s learne d t o mother . Blankenhor n argue s tha t th e children' s needs ca n onl y b e me t b y mother s an d father s adoptin g gender specific roles . Furthermore , h e argues , th e notio n o f androgenou s parenting i s nothing mor e than a selfish desir e grounded i n individu alistic narcissism . It is a denial of sexual complementarity an d ultimately a denial of generativity—particularly mal e generativity, which is, much more than the female's, largely a social construction. Especially for men, this particular promise of happiness is a cruel hoax. Like all forms of narcissism,its final product is not fulfillment bu t emptiness. If father hood has anything to say to men, it is that human completio n is not a solo act. (Blankenhorn 1995 , 123) Blankenhorn's qualitie s o f goo d fatherin g (th e Goo d Famil y Man ) sound lik e th e stereotyp e o f th e traditiona l father , onl y slightl y revised t o accommodat e companionat e marriag e an d th e nurturin g qualities o f th e Ne w Fathe r model . Hi s clai m tha t th e essentia l preconditions fo r fatherhoo d ar e "co-residenc y wit h childre n an d a

3 i / The Realities parental allianc e wit h th e mother " i s littl e mor e tha n a restatemen t of Parsons ' discredite d view s (Blankenhor n 1995 , 18). Blankenhorn's acknowledgmen t o f th e primar y rol e o f mother s and th e importanc e o f th e pairin g bon d o f th e coupl e t o successfu l fathering nevertheles s suggest s th e actua l rol e o f man y fathers . Many father s offe r significan t nurturin g suppor t t o mothers a s op posed t o directl y parentin g children . Rathe r tha n unique , essentia l parents t o thei r children , father s ar e critica l support s fo r mothers , who ar e th e primar y o r sol e caregivers . Thi s patter n i s a learne d cultural role , no t uniqu e t o fathers . Rather , i t represent s caregivers ' need fo r support , th e consequenc e o f th e essentia l car e the caregiver s give t o childre n an d th e difficult y o f providin g tha t care . This interconnecte d circl e o f caregivin g i s a t th e cor e o f attach ment theor y Accordin g t o thi s theory , parenta l nurturin g i s critica l to childre n a t th e earl y stage s o f lif e i n orde r t o provid e a base fro m which a chil d ma y securel y explor e ne w challenge s an d skills . Thi s base is seen a s essential t o healthy adulthood . Althoug h mos t attach ment theor y researc h o n infant s an d toddler s ha s focuse d o n th e mother-child bond , i t i s widel y recognize d tha t infant s ca n bon d a s well t o thei r father s (o r othe r adults) , an d tha t th e infant s ca n attac h to multipl e caregiver s a s wel l a s t o a singl e caregiver . Despit e thi s potential fo r multiple , coequa l attachment , th e primar y attachmen t theorist, Joh n Bowlby , see s th e rol e o f th e secon d paren t no t a s a second caregive r t o th e child , bu t a s a suppor t structur e fo r th e primary caregiver . "I f th e jo b (o f attachment ) i s t o b e wel l don e an d the child' s principa l caregive r i s no t t o b e to o exhausted , th e care giver hersel f (o r himself ) need s a grea t dea l o f assistance . Fro m whom tha t hel p come s wil l vary: very ofte n i t i s th e othe r parent ; i n many societies , including mor e ofte n tha n i s realized [in ] ou r own , i t comes fro m a grandmother" (Bowlb y 1988 , 2-3) . The stronges t clai m fo r a uniqu e rol e fo r fathers , then , i s tha t when father s strongl y suppor t th e mothe r i n a full-tim e parentin g role, thei r presenc e ha s significant , althoug h indirect , benefit s fo r children (Sige l et al. 1984, 35-56} Belsk y 1990 , 887) . Two parents ar e better tha n on e no t becaus e the y ar e opposit e sexes , but becaus e one , ideally, provide s economi c an d emotiona l suppor t t o th e on e wh o i s parenting. Accordin g t o thi s parentin g model , a singl e o r primar y caregiver i s dependen t upo n th e economi c an d socia l suppor t o f a sole o r primar y wag e earner . Th e primar y caregive r mus t hersel f b e

3 2 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

cared for . Thi s i s th e rol e o f th e secon d parent . On e commentato r calls thi s doulia fro m th e concep t o f a doula (Kitta y 1995). 6 A doula is on e wh o render s servic e o r car e t o anothe r wh o care s fo r a dependent; doulia i s the practice of cooperative, interrelational, inter dependent car e (Kitta y 1995) . Two parent s d o no t paren t differentl y simpl y i n styl e bu t als o i n form an d function . Thei r parentin g i s qualitativel y s o different a s t o be almos t entirel y dissimila r othe r tha n i n thei r paralle l geneti c o r adoptive ties . On e function s a s a backup t o th e other , a s a caregive r to the caregiver , no t a s an independent, coequal , an d differen t parent . There i s nothin g i n thi s mode l t o preven t interchang e o f roles , o r a multiplication o f wh o perform s th e roles , no r i s ther e anythin g tha t requires a marital coupl e a s the sol e basis fo r doulia. The direc t impac t o f father s o n thei r children , then , i s "essentiall y redundant" (Crocket t e t al . 1993 , 355) . Th e suppor t rol e doe s no t require sexua l intimac y no r heterosexualit y a s a precondition fo r it s performance. A s Bowlb y point s out , frequentl y grandmother s o r other femal e ki n o r friend s perfor m th e suppor t role . I n addition , paid caregiver s ca n perfor m th e suppor t role . O f course , i t doe s no t have t o b e so . Th e role s coul d b e share d an d changed , o r entirel y reconceived, an d ar e no t b y thei r term s gendered . While father s ca n mak e a difference b y supportin g mother s o r b y playing th e rol e o f th e primar y o r secondar y caregive r t o th e child , this doe s not suppor t th e premise tha t fatherin g i s inherently uniqu e or tha t tw o parent s ar e essentia l fo r adequat e caregiving . Th e denia l of a n inherent essentia l o r uniqu e rol e fo r father s shoul d no t b e confused, however , wit h recognizin g th e culturally distinc t role s o f mothering an d fathering . Motherin g an d fatherin g ar e differentl y conceived an d lived. Those difference s d o not, however, translat e int o developmental requirement s fo r children . To the contrary , traditiona l constructions o f fatherin g a t mos t alig n themselve s wit h th e doulia model, an d a t wors t mak e father s developmentall y irrelevan t b y limiting father s t o an economi c parenting role . Although bot h moth ering an d fatherin g ar e i n flux , i t i s fatherin g tha t remain s withou t a model t o replac e th e traditiona l economi c father . Mothering i s viewed a s a unique, natural , caregivin g relationship , biologically base d bu t als o somewha t mystical . Characteristic s his torically associate d wit h positiv e motherin g includ e sensitivity , warmth, love , acceptance , encouragemen t o f exploratio n an d expres -

33 / The Realities sion, respect , encouragemen t o f independence , an d th e use o f reason ing an d inductiv e reasonin g i n disciplin e (Crocket t e t al . 1993 , 7) . These characteristic s o f motherin g ar e associate d wit h th e rol e o f primary o r sol e nurturer . This traditiona l pictur e o f motherin g persists , althoug h mothers ' work-family rol e ha s undergon e radica l transformation . Acros s clas s lines an d includin g mother s o f very youn g children , mother s engag e in bot h wag e an d nonwag e work . Thi s shar p reorientatio n o f wom en's wor k role s ha s no t bee n matche d b y a n equivalen t shif t i n their famil y roles . Ver y littl e redistributio n o f househol d wor k an d childcare t o me n ha s occurred , creatin g a "secon d shift " o f unwage d work fo r women . Concerns abou t work-famil y conflict s hav e focuse d no t s o muc h on necessar y change s i n th e workplac e o r famil y roles , but rathe r o n whether wome n ca n be good mothers i f the y ar e goo d wage workers . Despite a concerte d effor t t o lin k women' s increasin g employmen t to negativ e chil d developmen t effects , evidenc e indicate s n o suc h link. Muc h curren t researc h point s t o th e positiv e developmenta l effects o f good-qualit y childcare . Furthermore , childre n ar e influ enced b y externa l perception s o f thei r parents , an d mother s ar e perceived mor e positively , a s mor e powerfu l an d competent , whe n they wor k outsid e th e hom e (Cashio n 1982 , 78). Thi s doe s not mea n that conflict s betwee n wor k an d famil y ar e no t seriou s an d d o no t need t o b e addressed , bu t rathe r tha t wor k an d famil y ar e no t incompatible, an d mor e particularl y tha t wag e wor k an d goo d moth ering ar e no t incompatible . Because s o muc h parentin g i s don e b y women , childre n d o no t have significantl y les s contac t wit h single-paren t mother s wh o d o wage wor k tha n wit h othe r mother s wh o wor k (Sani k an d Mauldi n 1986, $6)7 Socioeconomi c factor s hav e a strong impac t o n parentin g in single-mothe r households , fa r stronge r tha n th e absenc e o f a partner o r th e presenc e o f a fathe r surrogat e (Bronstei n e t al . 1993, 274). Perhap s th e stronges t evidenc e o f th e qualit y o f car e give n b y single mother s i s th e hig h proportio n o f gifte d childre n i n single mother household s (Cashio n 1982 , 82 ; Adams e t al . 1984, 139-40) . Despite th e evidenc e tha t women' s wor k an d greate r economi c independence i s goo d fo r childre n a s wel l a s fo r thei r mothers , an d that singl e mothers ar e more like married mother s tha n not , mother s continue t o b e hel d responsibl e fo r thei r childre n i n a wa y tha t

3 4 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

fathers ar e not , an d singl e mother s ar e blame d fa r mor e strongl y than marrie d mothers . On e surve y o f majo r clinica l psychologica l journals foun d tha t mother s wer e "blamed " fo r seventy-tw o kind s of psychopatholog y i n thei r children , i n shar p contras t t o fathers , who ar e leas t likel y t o b e see n a s responsibl e fo r personalit y an d behavior problem s ("Feminis t Psychology " 1992 , 35). Mothers als o suffe r th e psychologica l burden s o f parenting , bur dens whic h ar e ofte n hidde n beneat h romanti c notion s o f childre n and mothering. 8 I t i s remarkabl e tha t th e rol e strai n patter n i s s o similar fo r bot h single-paren t an d partnere d women . Singl e mother s nevertheless suffe r additiona l stress , du e t o economi c insufficiency , role strain , an d socia l isolation . Singl e mother s ar e a t hig h ris k fo r depression, lo w self-esteem , a sens e o f incompetency , an d help lessness. Never-marrie d an d lesbia n mother s suffe r additiona l socia l stressors an d th e lega l risk s o f losin g thei r childre n ("Feminis t Psy chology" 1992 , 38). While mothering i n practice has remaine d largel y constan t despit e radical chang e i n th e work-famil y context , fathering , o n th e othe r hand, continue s t o drif t i n a process o f redefinition . Unde r Parsons' s theories, father s wer e agent s o f connectio n betwee n familie s an d th e public sphere . Amon g psychoanalysts , theorist s conceive d o f father s as authorit y figure s providin g externa l rule s an d principle s ("Femi nist Psychology " 1992 , 9 ; Adam s e t al . 1984 , 19). 9 Alternatively , researchers measure d father s solel y a s economic providers . Current view s o f fatherin g lac k consensu s o n an y ne w model . Commentators o f al l stripe s recogniz e th e issu e althoug h the y dis agree o n proscription s (Blankenhor n 1995) . As parentin g ha s move d toward a n equalit y model , gende r seem s t o be disappearin g fro m th e characteristics o f goo d parenting . Ye t th e socializatio n an d suppor t for parentin g remain s primaril y directe d a t women . Withi n marrie d couples, parentin g i s commonl y see n a s th e wife' s domain . Hus bands' secondar y role s ofte n exten d t o thei r parentin g style . "Women inves t mor e o f thei r identit y i n parentin g tha n d o men . Men ar e usuall y muc h les s involve d tha n thei r wive s i n th e dail y care and supervisio n o f th e children , an d the y ten d t o se e themselve s as cas t i n a supportin g rol e wher e thei r responsibilit y i s t o provid e assistance t o th e primar y parent , th e mother " (Simon s e t al . 1990 , 376). Bot h me n an d wome n ar e largel y uneducate d abou t parenting . They lear n b y doing . I t i s ke y t o men' s involve d parentin g tha t

35 / The Realities fathers d o caregiving fro m th e beginning , s o that childre n d o not se e parenting a s purely o r dominantl y a female responsibilit y an d terri tory (Simon s e t al . 1990). Studies als o indicat e wome n vie w parentin g a s a duty , wherea s men vie w parentin g a s a n option . Mal e socializatio n continue s t o emphasize qualitie s i n conflic t wit h goo d parenting , an d parentin g challenges me n t o adop t characteristic s traditionall y viewe d a s un manly. Furthermore , th e limitation s o f th e workplac e affec t men' s ability t o chang e th e parameter s o f thei r fathering . Th e combinatio n of socializatio n an d structura l constraint s o n fathers ' parentin g rol e makes i t see m "natural " tha t motherin g an d fatherin g ar e substan tively different , gende r specialize d an d differentiated , eve n whil e the ideolog y o f equa l parentin g hide s th e inequalit y o f parentin g responsibility an d care . If ther e i s n o vali d developmenta l clai m o f uniqueness , i s ther e a valid clai m tha t two-paren t familie s creat e a healthie r balanc e o f power betwee n parent s an d children ? On e lega l commentator , Pro fessor Ir a Lupu , couche s hi s suppor t fo r th e superiorit y o f two parent familie s i n thes e terms : a two-paren t syste m prevent s th e abuse o f parenta l power . H e analogize s thi s familia l balanc e t o con stitutional separatio n o f powe r a s a chec k o n governmenta l abus e o f power (Lup u 1994) . He state s a s a substantive premis e tha t "childre n are bes t reare d i n regime s o f adul t equality , i n whic h patriarch y an d matriarchy ar e equall y discouraged " (Lup u 1994 , 1320) . The statemen t speak s volumes . I t presumes tha t equalit y i s possi ble an d i n fac t exist s i n parenting . I t assume s tha t i n th e absenc e o f two parent s ther e i s a n isolate d singl e parent , tha t ther e ca n b e n o other famil y for m tha t i s equa l t o th e presume d heterosexua l two parent famil y mode l o f th e presumption . I t als o assume s tha t patri archy an d matriarch y ar e simpl y difference s i n th e gende r o f th e head o f th e family , an d tha t bot h pattern s ar e hierarchical an d reflec t a simila r powe r dynami c tha t i s base d o n oppressio n o f th e les s powerful. Lupu see s th e legitimat e goa l o f th e lega l syste m a s maximizin g the numbe r o f caregiver s o f children , an d see s tw o parent s a s th e optimal number , regardles s o f gende r o r marita l status . He presume s equality o f th e caregivers . H e assume s tha t thei r functio n i s t o counter th e inclinatio n t o foste r self-referentia l behavior , an d t o monitor eac h other . Thi s i s t o se e th e primar y valu e o f tw o parent s

}6 I

MYTH S & REALITIE S

not a s multiplyin g an d diversifyin g th e car e o f th e child , bu t a s preventing abuse s an d controllin g behavior. I t makes th e relationshi p between th e caretaker s preeminen t ove r th e child' s relationships . McLanahan an d Sandefu r similarl y articulat e th e valu e o f th e two-parent famil y i n term s o f a syste m o f check s an d balance s that insure s parenta l responsibilit y an d prevent s abuse . "Whe n tw o biological parent s shar e th e sam e household , the y ca n monito r th e children an d maintai n parenta l control . Bu t jus t a s important , th e parents ca n als o monito r on e anothe r an d mak e sur e th e othe r par ent i s behavin g i n appropriat e ways' ' (McLanaha n an d Sandefu r 1994, 28) . One fina l developmenta l argumen t concernin g th e necessit y o f fathers i s tha t tw o parent s ar e necessar y fo r health y sex-rol e identi fication. Th e sex-rol e identificatio n hypothesi s i s ofte n connecte d t o the Freudia n assumptio n tha t a mothe r an d fathe r mus t b e presen t for appropriat e sex-type d identificatio n an d norma l chil d develop ment, wit h heterosexualit y designate d a s "normal. " Freudia n an d cognitive theorie s o f chil d developmen t hypothesiz e tha t childre n learn throug h modeling , particularl y b y identifyin g wit h th e sam e sex-parent. Recent researc h ha s undercu t thes e theorie s b y concludin g tha t two heterosexua l parent s ar e no t necessar y fo r health y cognitive , emotional, o r sex-rol e developmen t (Belchma n 1982 ; Carlso n 1987) . As on e researche r pu t it , "hig h qualit y motherin g ca n compensat e for los s o f th e fathe r i n th e single-paren t homes , wherea s low quality fatherin g ca n negativel y influenc e children' s developmen t i n intact homes " (Carlso n 1987 , 565) . Childre n ca n lear n sex-type d behavior, assumin g tha t i s desirable , fro m eithe r th e same-se x o r a n opposite-sex parent . Studie s hav e foun d som e father s t o b e mor e concerned wit h sex-type d behavior . Hence , girl s ma y lear n feminin e behavior fro m thei r fathers , base d o n thei r fathers ' expectations , rather tha n modelin g themselve s afte r thei r mother s (78) . Likewise , there i s bot h theoretica l an d empirica l suppor t fo r th e propositio n that i t i s unnecessar y fo r a father t o b e presen t fo r a boy t o lear n t o be "masculine " (80) . I t i s als o importan t no t t o overemphasiz e th e role o f th e family , o r t o vie w sex-rol e developmen t a s a one-time , fixed process ; rather , i t i s a lifelon g proces s affecte d b y man y vari ables (Ferre e 1990 , 868-70 ; Schult z 1990,1816-17) . Sex typin g i s th e mean s b y whic h female s an d male s develo p

37 / The Realities feminine an d masculin e behaviors , expectations , an d lif e goals . A s part o f thei r development , individual s lear n th e expectation s fo r their gende r group . Sex-rol e stereotype s abou t desirabl e behavior s and personalit y hav e seriou s implication s fo r women' s an d men' s well-being ("Feminis t Psychology " 1992 , 42) . Well-bein g i s mea sured differentl y b y menta l healt h professional s fo r me n an d women; identificatio n o f sex-rol e functionin g i s therefor e viewe d a s critical t o individua l self-perception . The implication s o f se x typin g fo r self-identit y an d self-esteem , within a contex t o f highl y unequa l valuin g o f eac h sex , i s a n are a that psychologist s ar e continuin g t o explore . Som e hav e suggeste d that a combination o f masculin e an d feminin e characteristic s i s mos t psychologically healthy , a n androgyn y model . Se x stereotypin g re search indicates , however , tha t adoptin g characteristic s o f th e oppo site se x may no t b e well received ; violation s o f se x role standard s ar e judged harshl y (44) . Othe r psychologist s sugges t a transcenden t model i s healthiest , whereb y me n an d wome n wil l naturall y lear n (limited) gende r roles , bu t wil l transcen d them . A gender-fre e ap proach, o n th e othe r hand , woul d encourag e childre n t o reject gende r stereotypes, rathe r tha n conside r th e adoptio n o f stereotype d behav ior a s a norma l "phase. " Finally , unde r a n empowermen t model , individuals ar e presumed t o be functioning i n a patriarchal an d sexis t environment. Th e focu s i s personal powe r within that environment. The strategie s includ e developin g i n girl s th e abilit y t o avoi d a s women psychologica l disorder s suc h a s depressio n whic h ar e closel y connected t o aspect s o f traditiona l rol e modelin g (47-50) . The famil y i s a cor e institutio n tha t socialize s childre n i n se x typing. 10 I t i s through thei r familie s tha t childre n lear n gende r rule s and roles . Traditiona l Wester n notion s o f famil y contai n a "hidde n curriculum," tha t implicitl y an d explicitl y "inform s wome n abou t who the y are , wha t the y ma y become , an d ho w the y shoul d vie w themselves" (Snyde r 1992 , 60). In two-paren t familie s th e allocatio n of gende r role s i s extremel y significan t (60) . Families teac h b y mod eling, b y wha t the y do, by thei r reaction s t o wha t thei r childre n do , that reinforce s gendere d behavio r (positiv e attentio n fo r sex-type d toys, repriman d fo r cross-se x play) ; by explici t instructio n i n gende r roles an d skill s (wh o learn s t o cook , wh o learn s sports) ; an d th e structure withi n whic h gende r skill s ar e tried , tha t is , dressin g an d dating (61-63) .

3 8 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

The contex t o f fathering , typifie d b y unequa l caretakin g an d eco nomic dominance , suggest s tha t a primary , albei t implicit , rol e fo r fathers a s parent s i s teachin g gende r role s tha t suppor t patriarchy . We hav e no t establishe d a n alternativ e mode l o f tru e share d parent ing o r ho w suc h parentin g woul d functio n i n th e famil y an d th e workplace. No r hav e w e clarifie d whethe r t o accep t o r rejec t th e concept o f gende r roles . Familie s functio n i n a contex t o f gende r inequality tha t i s bot h interna l an d external , affectin g famil y dy namics i n both obviou s an d subtl e ways . Chil d developmen t authori ties an d other s presum e th e hom e i s critica l t o th e proces s o f gende r role socialization , th e locu s fo r acquirin g gende r role , o r a t th e ver y least a stron g influenc e o n concept s o f gender . Defender s o f th e status qu o ma y fea r single-paren t familie s becaus e patriarcha l pat terns wil l no t b e taught . I n th e ag e o f equalit y suc h reasonin g i s both archai c an d riddle d wit h unjustifie d gende r stereotype s unles s it i s possible t o ri d i t o f it s patriarchal presumptions . What, then , i s th e rol e o f father s ? The developmenta l perspectiv e suggests tha t the y ar e important , bu t no t essential , tha t thei r rol e i s not unique , bu t additive . Ar e father s unnecessary ? I f father s ar e inessential and/o r replaceable , father s an d husband s ma y fea r tha t i f women ar e no t kep t dependent , the y wil l no t for m relationship s with me n o r shar e childre n wit h me n becaus e the y wil l n o longe r be needed . Howeve r absur d thi s fea r migh t be , fea r o f women' s independence wit h respec t t o reproductio n an d childbearin g ma y lie behin d stigmatizin g single-paren t families . Wha t ma y b e mos t troubling t o many abou t single-paren t familie s i s that singl e mother s establish suppor t structures , a s wel l a s engag e i n relationship s wit h men, bu t contro l whethe r t o establis h a legal bon d wit h a man o r t o share parenting . The fear s generate d abou t father s ca n lead to Blankenhorn's asser tions o f th e threa t t o societ y a s w e kno w it . Ther e i s n o doub t fatherhood i s in crisis . Blankenhorn i s right tha t w e shoul d no t writ e fathers off . Bu t th e solution , fro m a developmenta l perspective , i s not t o proclaim fathers ' uniqueness . Rather , i t i s to acknowledg e tha t it i s masculinity an d intimac y tha t ar e challenged . Fo r childre n nee d continuity, commitment , an d caring . Ho w t o culturall y an d sociall y encourage tha t amon g me n i s the question . Bu t i t will not b e accom plished b y fals e assumption s o f uniqueness . While th e developmenta l justificatio n i s unsubstantiated , th e mental healt h issue s o f singl e parent s shoul d no t b e ignored . Singl e

39 / The Realities parents d o suffe r fro m depressio n an d stress , bu t th e sourc e o f th e stress is , t o a significan t degree , tie d t o economi c factor s a s wel l a s related socia l issue s o f contro l an d independenc e (Mednic k 1987 , 188; McLanaha n an d Boot h 1989 , 562). n Researc h indicate s tha t poor wome n conside r al l option s whic h allo w the m t o retai n contro l over thei r live s befor e turnin g t o welfar e (Mednic k 1987 , 189) . Another sourc e o f anxiet y fo r singl e mother s whe n the y establis h a family afte r a marriage o r simila r relationshi p wit h a man i s manag ing th e authorit y shif t fro m father s t o mothers , an d th e impac t o f increased responsibilitie s an d stres s o n familia l well-bein g (187) . Stress als o ha s t o b e considere d fro m a gende r rol e perspective . "Autonomy, authority , an d powe r ar e no t congruen t wit h traditiona l family role s fo r women , ye t thes e characteristic s hav e bee n cite d a s an importan t sourc e o f positiv e feeling s fo r singl e mothers " (194) . Social network s mediat e som e o f th e stress , bu t littl e researc h ha s been devote d t o evaluatin g ki n an d othe r socia l an d emotiona l sup port networks . The developmenta l justification , therefore , i s largely myth . Ther e is n o empiricall y base d argumen t o r developmenta l nee d fo r elevat ing th e heterosexual , nuclea r two-paren t family , o r denigratin g th e single-parent family . Th e consequence s o f povert y explai n muc h of th e negativ e behavio r exhibite d b y childre n fro m single-paren t families. A s a prox y fo r poverty , fathe r absenc e doe s provid e a lin k to th e problem s face d b y single-paren t families , bu t i t i s not the cause. On e canno t den y tha t single-paren t familie s fac e psychologi cal issues . Som e o f thos e issue s ar e unique , som e ar e n o differen t from thos e o f man y two-paren t families . Th e absenc e o f a fathe r a s a fathe r i s no t generall y th e cause . Th e developmenta l analysi s exposes th e fallac y o f th e presume d superiorit y an d necessit y o f tw o parents, a s well a s the stron g difference s i n expectation s an d role s o f men an d wome n a s parents .

THE MORALIT Y JUSTIFICATIO N Myth: Single

Parents Are Sinful I Immoral

Stigmatizing singl e parent s a s immora l i s les s myt h tha n belief . Unlike th e othe r justification s fo r stigma , whic h purpor t t o b e base d on "objective " harm , thi s justificatio n i s largel y base d purel y o n

4 0 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

convictions. I t canno t b e challenge d o n th e basi s o f actua l realities , because th e stigm a i s no t attache d t o parentin g o r famil y function . Rather, i t i s stigm a connecte d particularl y t o th e sexua l act s o f adults whic h brough t childre n int o being . I t i s belie f fundamentall y grounded i n religiou s doctrin e tha t condemn s sexualit y an d childbearing ou t o f wedlock . I t i s als o inextricabl y connecte d t o preserving patriarcha l privileg e b y protectin g th e designatio n o f pa ternity a s wel l a s b y preservin g exclusiv e sexua l acces s t o marrie d women. The histori c sanctio n fo r failur e t o adop t th e patriarcha l structur e of marriag e withi n whic h childbearin g wa s permissibl e wa s quit e powerful. Stigm a wa s no t limite d t o th e adult s wh o ha d committe d the sinfu l acts ; th e mora l opprobriu m extende d t o children , labele d as bastard s an d scorne d sociall y an d legally . Th e illegitimat e chil d a t common la w wa s labele d "th e so n o f n o one, " withou t a legall y recognized mothe r o r father , withou t a surnam e (Gubernat v. Deretner 1995) . Only i n th e nineteent h centur y di d reformer s partiall y remove thi s symboli c nonexistenc e b y recognizin g mothe r an d chil d as a lega l unit , s o tha t th e chil d woul d tak e th e mother' s surname . This mad e sens e sinc e th e mother , bu t no t th e father , ha d a n obliga tion t o suppor t th e chil d (133) . Unwed mother s similarl y wer e controlle d b y ostracizin g them , a s well a s limitin g thei r lega l rights . Disreputable , immora l wome n included b y definitio n thos e wh o violate d th e preferre d nor m o f sexuality an d childre n withi n marriage . Thus , unlik e men , whos e economic statu s determine d thei r class , wome n derive d thei r clas s from thei r sexualit y an d thei r relationshi p t o men . Wome n wh o violated th e preferre d nor m wer e see n a s whores ; thos e wh o con formed t o i t wer e madonnas . "Me n tak e thei r plac e i n th e clas s hierarchy base d o n their occupation s o r on their father' s socia l status . . . . Fo r women , . . . clas s distinction s ar e base d o n thei r relation ship—or absenc e o f such—t o a ma n wh o protect s them , an d o n their sexua l activities . Th e divisio n o f wome n int o 'respectabl e women/ an d 'disreputabl e women ' ha s bee n th e basi c clas s divisio n for women " (Lerne r 1986) . The religiou s an d socia l condemnatio n o f "bad " wome n ha s bee n powerful. Biblica l condemnatio n include s th e Ol d Testamen t punish ment o f stonin g a woma n t o deat h i f sh e violate d th e cod e o f sexuality an d los t he r virginit y prio r t o marriage . Th e treatmen t

4 i / The Realities of Heste r Prynn e i n Nathanie l Hawthorne' s nove l o f seventeenth century Ne w England , The Scarlet Letter, epitomize s th e publi c humiliation an d shamin g o f immora l wome n (Hawthorn e 1850) . Criminal law s surroundin g pregnanc y hav e reflecte d th e religiou s judgment o f singl e motherhoo d a s sinful . Thi s religiou s condemna tion i s also eviden t i n th e structur e o f divorc e (prio r t o th e adven t o f no-fault) whic h wa s designe d t o discourag e an d stigmatiz e divorce . The stron g mora l condemnatio n o f unwe d motherhoo d laste d wel l into th e 1960s . Some might argu e that i t has onc e again bee n revive d with th e recen t advocac y o f orphanage s a s a solutio n fo r th e "fail ures" o f mother s o n welfare . Certainl y on e o f th e mos t powerfu l arguments fo r welfar e refor m wa s stemmin g th e tid e o f teenag e pregnancy an d nonmarita l parenthood . Although societ y stil l condemn s singl e parents fo r thei r perceive d lack o f morality , socia l norm s surroundin g parenthoo d hav e shifte d dramatically i n th e recen t past . Unwe d motherhoo d i s mor e accept able, althoug h mixe d reaction s persist . Unwe d motherhoo d du e t o divorce ha s grow n dramatically , fuele d b y a differen t vie w o f mar riage an d intimat e relationship s tha t doe s no t condem n th e dissolu tion o f wha t wa s intende d a s a lifelon g relationship . A t th e sam e time, divorce d mother s mus t exercis e car e to be "good " mothers , no t sexually promiscuou s mothers . Su e Miller' s 198 5 book , The Good Mother, criticall y explore s thi s trend . I n th e book , th e mothe r lose s custody o f he r chil d whe n he r ex-husban d charge s he r an d he r love r with "sexua l irregularities. " I n orde r t o hav e eve n limite d contac t with he r child , th e mother' s penanc e i s tha t sh e leav e he r love r an d renounce he r sexuality . Never-married mother s ar e subjec t t o eve n mor e ambiguit y o f feeling. O n th e on e hand , socia l consensu s ha s shifte d significantly . Unwed motherhoo d n o longe r translate s int o socia l isolatio n an d ostracism, implemente d b y suc h mean s a s suspensio n o r expulsio n of unwe d mother s fro m schoo l o r th e firin g o f teacher s o r othe r employees wh o ar e unwe d mothers . Unwe d mother s ar e no t uncom mon an d thei r publi c presenc e i s accepted . Today , mos t religiou s traditions, includin g som e o f th e mos t traditiona l an d patriarchal , support rathe r tha n ostraciz e singl e parents . Courts hav e struc k dow n policie s excludin g singl e parent s fro m education an d employment . Exclusionar y policie s hav e bee n success fully challenge d usin g Fourteent h Amendmen t argument s base d o n

4 2 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

procedural du e proces s concern s abou t irrebuttabl e presumption s (dealing wit h immorality/unfitness) ; substantiv e du e proces s argu ments grounde d i n righ t t o privac y case s (findin g a righ t t o bea r a child an d th e righ t t o decid e no t t o marr y fro m abortio n an d mar riage cases) ; and substantiv e du e proces s argument s base d o n respec t for famil y integrity . This shif t i n lega l outcome s i s somewha t contradicte d b y result s in nonconstitutiona l litigation . I n th e absenc e o f Fourteent h Amend ment claims , justifications fo r firin g singl e parent s o n th e basi s tha t their conduc t i s immoral an d tha t the y represen t ba d rol e model s fo r students hav e bee n quit e successful . Tw o particularl y notabl e case s involved unwe d Africa n America n wome n wh o wer e discharge d from th e YWC A an d th e Girl s Clu b when the y becam e pregnant , o n the basi s tha t the y woul d b e harmfu l rol e model s fo r teenag e girl s (Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club 1987 ; Harvey v. YWCA 1982) . Th e courts' acceptance o f this moral justification, thei r refusa l t o evaluat e closely th e se x an d rac e discriminatio n claims , an d thei r capitulatio n to powerfu l negativ e stereotype s associate d wit h singl e Blac k moth ers figure d prominentl y i n thes e cases . I t i s difficul t t o imagin e a n employer refusin g t o hir e a divorce d singl e whit e paren t o n simila r grounds o r dischargin g a n employe e who divorce d durin g th e cours e of employment . The sens e o f ambiguit y create d b y greate r acceptanc e bu t persis tent stigm a suggest s a kind o f secularizatio n o f th e moralit y stigma . The rational e seem s t o hav e shifte d fro m sinfulnes s t o stupidity , from immoralit y t o ba d judgment , althoug h th e immoralit y facto r has b y n o mean s disappeared . Thi s i s mos t eviden t wit h respec t t o teenage singl e mothers . Unwe d parenthoo d i s see n a s a sig n o f immaturity an d ba d decisio n makin g rathe r tha n a s a sig n o f un fitness. We ma y b e returnin g t o mora l condemnatio n o f singl e parents . I t is a comple x mora l question . Ca n w e vie w singl e parentin g simpl y as a matte r o f individua l choice ? Shoul d w e valu e particula r famil y forms tha t see m t o work bette r fo r childre n a t th e curren t tim e ? The strongest mora l claim , however , shoul d b e th e car e o f childre n an d strong suppor t fo r thei r caregivers . A s lon g a s w e structurall y an d functionally suppor t a sole o r primar y caregive r mode l o f parenting , and inegalitaria n wor k structures , moralit y dictate s suppor t fo r pri mary caregiver s a s the bes t mean s t o suppor t children . We justify punitiv e measure s a s deterrents. Bu t the y d o not deter .

43 / The Realities Existing lega l structures , buil t o n th e theor y o f deterrence , hav e been monumentall y unsuccessfu l i n stemmin g th e growt h o f single parent familie s (eve n assumin g tha t i s a justifiabl e goal) . S o w e punish onl y children . Tha t certainl y make s n o mora l sense . While i t makes sens e t o foste r responsibl e parentin g by , for example , discour aging teenage pregnanc y throug h education , counselin g abou t repro ductive choice , an d th e provisio n o f genuin e economi c an d employ ment opportunities , i t doe s no t mak e sens e t o punis h th e childre n o f single parents . The rejection , then , o f punitiv e morall y base d policie s is no t a n appea l t o libertarianis m bu t rathe r a n argumen t tha t th e welfare o f childre n shoul d b e paramount. I t leave s plent y o f roo m t o exercise ou r mora l commitment s b y insurin g responsibilit y an d car e for children . Teenagers appea r t o epitomiz e al l o f th e wors t negative s o f singl e parenting. The y ar e socially , economically , an d developmentall y "a t risk/' Al l o f thes e negativ e attribute s see m t o justif y a polic y o f deterrence, eve n o f stigmatization , base d o n th e belie f tha t parentin g at thi s ag e is bad both fo r th e parent s an d fo r th e children . The numbe r o f teenager s wh o chos e t o bea r an d rais e thei r chil dren a s single mothers increase d 35 0 percent betwee n i96 0 an d 197 9 (Schamess 1990 , 155) . At th e sam e time , th e percentag e o f childre n born t o singl e parent s an d place d fo r adoptio n droppe d dramatically . Today 9 7 percen t o f wome n wh o carr y a nonmarita l pregnanc y t o term choos e t o rais e th e chil d themselve s (Dickso n 1991) . Th e mos t serious proble m facin g teenag e singl e parent s i s thei r disadvantag e in th e economi c structure ; the y ente r th e workplac e early , wit h fe w skills, an d littl e o r n o experience . The y begi n parentin g i n povert y and ar e likely t o remai n i n poverty . The dominan t vie w o f teenag e singl e parent s i s that b y definitio n they ar e ba d parent s (Dickso n 1991) . I t i s important , however , t o question wha t i t i s abou t teenager s tha t make s u s s o uncomfortable . It i s no t a t al l clea r whethe r teenager s hav e short - o r long-ter m problems, whethe r thei r deficiencies , t o th e exten t the y actuall y exist, ar e temporar y o r permanent . Wit h socia l support , teenag e mothers coul d b e educate d an d employed . Th e consequence s o f par enting a t a youn g ag e nee d no t b e disastrou s o r fina l fo r teenager s or fo r thei r children . Furthermore, th e stigm a ha s been attache d mos t strongl y t o teen age mothers, withou t addressin g th e rol e an d need s o f fathers . Inter estingly, a significan t proportio n o f th e father s ar e no t teenagers ;

4 4 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

according t o a recent study , mor e tha n hal f o f th e father s o f childre n born t o wome n age d fiftee n t o seventee n ar e ag e twent y o r older . One-fifth o f th e father s ar e mor e tha n si x year s olde r tha n th e mothers ("Tee n Pregnanc y Study " 1995) . A punitive , rathe r tha n a supportiv e approach , make s sens e onl y from a moral perspective . Wha t i s stunnin g i s that moralit y justifie s punishment fo r children , i n th e for m o f lac k o f resource s an d socia l support, a s a moral solutio n t o singl e parenting . Mor e clearly , i t i s a punishment mean t t o "solve " th e spiralin g rat e o f teenag e preg nancy. Th e bes t expertis e o n teenag e pregnancy , however , doe s no t identify punitiv e policie s towar d single-paren t familie s a s a n effec tive solutio n o r deterrent . Rather , bette r educationa l an d jo b oppor tunities, couple d wit h sex educatio n an d self-esteem , ar e mor e effec tive in dealin g with th e issue s tha t li e at th e hear t o f tee n pregnancy . In th e fac e o f tha t knowledge , policie s designe d t o stigmatiz e chil dren, b y permanentl y punishin g an d disadvantagin g thei r parents , are morall y reprehensibl e fo r th e stat e an d society . What remains , then, i s a justification fo r stigm a based o n religiou s beliefs. Withou t regar d t o thos e beliefs , thei r religiou s basi s make s them a n unsoun d foundatio n fo r publi c policy . Th e religiou s norm s are strongl y intertwine d wit h patriarcha l famil y structures , an d therefore thes e view s ar e suspec t a s discriminatory . Historica l reli gious condemnatio n o f singl e parent s ha s bee n singularl y reserve d for unwe d motherhood , representin g a sexua l an d mora l doubl e standard fo r wome n an d men . I n addition , secula r moralit y judg ments ar e ofte n unsupporte d an d counterproductive . Wit h respec t to teenagers , focusin g o n mora l condemnatio n distract s u s fro m confronting th e cause s o f teenag e pregnancy . Mor e generally , focus ing mora l judgments o n parent s ignore s an d punishe s thei r children . Punitive rathe r tha n progressiv e socia l an d lega l polic y mean s tha t children mus t ofte n endur e a lifetim e o f povert y fo r wha t w e vie w as their parents ' mistakes .

IMPLICIT JUSTIFICATIONS : RAC E AN D GENDER STORIE S The economi c an d developmenta l justification s clai m neutral , objec tive reason s tha t justif y punitiv e policie s towar d singl e parents , a s a

45 / The Realities necessary mean s t o dete r formatio n o f familie s tha t ar e ba d fo r children an d ba d fo r society . Th e moralit y justificatio n appeal s t o belief, t o a n ethica l o r mora l standard , a s a basi s fo r stigma . I n addition t o th e lac k o f substanc e t o thes e justifications , however , they als o serv e t o hide , by thei r purporte d neutralit y an d objectivit y on th e on e hand , an d th e clai m o f mora l hig h groun d o n th e other , implicit understanding s abou t rac e and gende r tha t justify stigmatiz ing singl e parents . Thes e implici t rac e an d gende r justification s ar e central t o th e ongoin g stigm a attache d t o singl e parents . The rac e stor y i s tha t singl e parenthoo d i s predictable , a mar k o f self-defeating, self-generate d inferiority . Man y commentator s us e the racialization 12 o f unwe d singl e parenthoo d t o allo t th e highes t level o f socia l contemp t t o Blac k singl e mothers . Th e gende r stor y i s that wome n canno t rais e childre n alone , and therefor e thei r attempt s to d o s o mus t b e discouraged . Man y vie w th e failur e t o ge t marrie d or sta y marrie d a s antipatriarcha l rebellio n whic h mus t b e harshl y repressed. Racial mytholog y i s frequentl y tie d t o notion s o f differenc e an d otherness. Wit h respec t t o families , i t i s ofte n linke d t o differen t patterns o f famil y formatio n an d structure . Th e dominan t patter n for creatin g single-paren t familie s differ s b y race ; th e mos t stigma tized single-paren t families , never-marrie d parents , ar e mor e com mon amon g Africa n Americans , whil e divorce d single-paren t fami lies ar e mor e commo n amon g whites. 13 Blac k childre n ar e fa r mor e likely t o spen d a longe r perio d o f tim e i n a single-paren t famil y during thei r childhood , an d Blac k parent s ar e les s likel y t o remarr y following divorc e (Fin e an d Schwebe l 1988) . The predominanc e o f single-paren t familie s (mos t create d b y lac k of marriage , no t divorce ) amon g Africa n American s ha s been viewe d in a number o f ways . First , som e argu e i t reflect s th e mos t advanta geous famil y for m fo r obtainin g economi c resources . Th e structur e of publi c an d privat e economi c option s provide s suppor t fo r thi s view. Second, som e argu e tha t i t might b e viewed a s the consequenc e of th e disempowermen t o f Blac k men o r th e limite d choice s impose d by povert y Finally , som e conceiv e o f i t a s pathological , cultura l suicide, somethin g innat e i n th e race . I t i s thi s las t vie w tha t ha s prevailed (Moyniha n 1988 , 3-6). The intersectio n o f rac e an d gende r generate s powerfu l stereo types abou t Blac k wome n an d i s rea d a s a challeng e t o whit e an d

4 6 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

male standards . "[Y]oung , single , sexuall y active , fertile , an d nurtur ing Blac k women ar e being viewed ominousl y becaus e the y hav e th e temerity t o attemp t t o brea k ou t o f th e rigi d economic , social , an d political categorie s tha t a racist , sexist , an d class-stratifie d societ y would impos e upo n them " (Austi n 1989 , 555). Th e goal , therefore , is t o contro l Blac k women' s perceive d sexualit y an d fecundity ; thi s goal presume s th e existenc e o f a dangerou s cultur e tha t reproduce s dysfunctional, matriarchal , single-paren t families . B y linkin g single parent familie s t o teenag e pregnancy , i n particular , polic y maker s label Blac k singl e parents a s deviant . Alternatively, Blac k familie s ar e criticize d a s matriarchal . Bu t a s one researche r ha s pointe d out , thi s i s a misguided portrai t o f matri archy: Because of sexism and racism, the Black female-headed househol d is more likely than the white to be sorely deprived economically. While some writers mistakenly call the Western world a matriarchy, we see that at best it is a pseudomatriarchy. Women do not even have earning power equal to men—much less , greater earning power. (Adams et al . 1984 , 61 )

This i s not t o den y th e lac k o f opportunitie s fo r Blac k men; rather , i t is to notice and expos e the lac k of policies that suppor t Blac k women . The rac e narrativ e ignore s problem s facin g singl e parents , espe cially problem s relate d t o publi c polic y favorin g privat e ove r publi c support, a s wel l a s structurin g publi c suppor t s o a s t o discourag e marital family . Th e economi c suppor t structur e fo r single-paren t families, t o th e exten t i t exists , relie s heavil y o n transfer s o f incom e from on e paren t t o another . Th e publi c suppor t structur e historicall y and t o a significan t exten t currently , provide s superio r benefit s t o nonmarital familie s a s compare d t o marita l families . Moreover , poli cies favorin g privat e suppor t fai l t o utiliz e nontraditiona l famil y kin an d friendshi p structures . "Policie s tha t impl y a nuclear-famil y structure woul d affec t Blac k an d whit e familie s differentl y simpl y because mor e Blac k families represen t th e extended-famil y form . . . . The extende d famil y i s essential , i n part , t o compensat e fo r th e impact o f socia l polic y failure s o n th e Blac k community , specificall y low AFD C payment s an d hig h unemployment " (Washingto n 1988 , 93-101). 14 Thu s welfar e structure s oddl y encourage , bu t onl y i n a marginalizing way , single-paren t Blac k families . Povert y magnifie s the inadequacie s o f AFD C fo r th e Blac k community , whic h contain s a disproportionat e shar e o f poo r families .

47 / The Realities The predominanc e o f single-paren t familie s amon g Blac k familie s makes th e cas e no t fo r racia l self-destructio n bu t fo r racia l subordi nation. I t reflect s th e unremittin g attack s o n Blac k families , an d th e ongoing disempowermen t o f Blac k men. Paradoxically , i t also reflect s resistance t o whit e patriarcha l norm s (Austi n 1989 , 566). White s and Black s typicall y respon d differentl y t o singl e parenthood , bot h structurally an d emotionall y (Fin e an d Schwebe l 1988 , 3) . No t onl y is th e origi n o f single-paren t statu s fo r Black s les s likel y t o b e divorce, but virtuall y al l divorce studie s have been don e with middle class whites, s o any generalizatio n amon g race s i s questionable . Available studie s sugges t Black s ma y cop e mor e successfull y wit h single-parent status . Thi s succes s ma y b e tie d t o distinctiv e feature s of Blac k culture , particularl y Africa n tradition s promotin g th e con nectedness o f th e community , whic h translate s int o a broade r ki n and friendshi p network , multipl e parenting , child-centere d socia l structures, an d flexibilit y i n rol e definition s an d performanc e (McKenry an d Fin e 1993 ; Hill 1971) . On e othe r consequenc e o f thi s different cultura l contex t ma y b e a differen t concep t o f fatherhood . Fathers ma y remai n mor e closel y tie d t o thei r childre n bot h i n nonmarital familie s a s wel l a s i n postdivorc e familie s (McLanaha n and Sandefu r 1994) . The challenge s tha t fac e Blac k mother s ar e significant . Thes e challenges ar e compounded b y race, and these additional unnecessar y hurdles mus t b e acknowledged . Th e condition s unde r whic h man y Black wome n mothe r ar e designe d t o defea t rathe r tha n suppor t their families . Th e problem s o f wome n o f lowes t incom e ar e espe cially severe . Bu t jus t a s w e mus t no t romanticiz e Blac k mothers , and Blac k culture , neithe r shoul d th e strength s o f tha t cultur e b e ignored. I n th e fac e o f powerfu l negativ e factors , man y Blac k moth ers hav e carve d ou t a n admirabl e mode l o f parentin g whic h i s mor e fully explore d i n chapte r 5 . Tha t mode l i s hidde n b y racia l stigm a and myth . Gender myth s overla p an d intertwin e wit h racia l stereotypes . Th e negative stigm a attache d t o singl e parent s i s primaril y directe d a t single mothers . Fo r women , t o b e a singl e paren t i s t o b e a failur e and a n aberration . Woma n a s mothe r i s on e o f ou r mos t powerfu l social categories ; i t wrap s wome n i n myth , mysticism , an d awe . A t the sam e time, the concep t an d realit y o f the singl e mother generate s intense fear , anger , an d a threa t t o me n (Ric h 1986) . A s Marth a Fineman ha s observed , mother s withou t me n ar e th e patriarchy' s

4 8 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

worst nightmar e (Finema n 1991b) . Protectin g th e patriarch y re quires conceptualizin g me n a s essential , economicall y an d develop mentally. Men' s biologica l ti e t o childre n i s the basi s unde r thi s vie w to clai m right s o r responsibilitie s designe d t o pu t me n bac k int o the famil y picture , voluntaril y o r involuntarily , whethe r wante d o r requested b y th e singl e mother . It is striking, but often seen as unremarkable, that women dominate single-parent families. Women' s dominanc e reflect s women' s continuing rol e i n caretaking , a s wel l a s th e endurin g powe r o f culture an d ideolog y i n reinforcin g women' s caretakin g role . I n an other respect , th e predominance o f female-headed single-paren t fam ilies highlight s th e definitiona l issue s an d th e curiou s positio n o f men: ther e ar e jus t a s man y mal e singl e parents , bu t the y ar e virtually invisibl e becaus e o f th e shar p distinctio n betwee n thei r parental rol e an d singl e mothers ' role . I f singl e parentin g i s define d by sol e o r primar y caretaking , the n th e numbe r o f mal e singl e parents i s quit e small ; i f parentin g i s define d solel y b y geneti c connection, the n th e numbe r o f mal e singl e parent s i s roughl y equivalent t o th e numbe r o f femal e singl e parents . The disproportio n betwee n th e numbe r o f female-heade d versu s male-headed familie s i n povert y i s striking . Almos t hal f o f familie s headed b y wome n ar e poor , compare d wit h les s tha n 3 percen t o f families heade d b y me n (Funiciell o 1990 , 37) . Th e averag e famil y income fo r single-paren t mother s (includin g chil d support ) i s les s than hal f tha t o f single-paren t father s wit h custod y (Burea u o f Census 1989) . Gendere d differential s betwee n media n income s ex pose th e inequalitie s women , particularl y wome n wit h children , fac e in th e workplac e an d th e lac k o f choice s an d option s fo r reducin g that poverty . It i s frequentl y note d tha t on e o f th e mos t commo n route s ou t o f poverty fo r lon e mothers i s marriage. Rather tha n triggerin g concer n about th e economi c dynamics o f marriage an d th e gross inadequacie s and continuin g discriminatio n o f th e wag e labo r market , o r th e failure t o redistribut e privat e incom e o r provid e meaningfu l publi c support, thi s patter n i s cite d a s evidenc e tha t marriag e shoul d b e strongly supporte d a s a deterrent t o poverty . Thi s i s lik e sayin g tha t women wh o canno t kee p a man o r wh o canno t fin d a new on e caus e poverty. The assumption s wit h respec t t o me n ar e entirel y different : i t i s

49 / The Realities simply presume d tha t mos t canno t paren t adequately . Ye t singl e fathers d o a s well a t parentin g a s mother s whe n the y ac t a s primar y or sol e custodial parent s (Bronstei n 1993 , 274). Father-custody fami lies ar e currentl y th e fastes t growin g famil y for m (relativ e o f cours e to a ver y smal l initia l number) . Father s i n thes e familie s hav e bee n little studie d an d wer e no t include d i n dat a source s o n chil d suppor t until 1992 (Meye r an d Garask y 1993) . Earl y studie s describ e thes e fathers a s white , middle-aged , relativel y wel l educated , wit h goo d jobs an d relativel y hig h incomes . On th e othe r hand , on e 198 8 stud y found thos e father s mor e likel y t o hav e childre n wer e older , male , and Black . I t distinguishe d betwee n father-onl y families , wher e th e father's incom e tende d t o b e lowe r an d wh o wer e les s educated , compared t o father/stepmothe r families , wh o ha d highe r incomes , better educationa l levels , an d mor e likel y wer e whit e (Meye r an d Garasky 1993) . In father-custod y familie s th e majorit y o f father s ar e unmarried , but a large r proportio n tha n singl e mother s ar e remarrie d (4 1 per cent versu s 2 3 percent) . Th e father s ar e mostl y divorced ; 8 percen t are widowers , 2 5 percen t ar e never-marrie d fathers , th e res t ar e divorced fathers . The childre n i n single-fathe r familie s ten d t o fall , i n income , between single-mothe r an d two-paren t families . Father s hav e fa r higher income s a s a group , almos t twic e tha t o f mother-onl y fami lies. Th e ga p i s greates t betwee n never-marrie d father s an d never married mothers : th e fathers ' income s ar e 2. 3 time s highe r tha n never-married mothers ' incomes . Nevertheless , a significant numbe r live i n poverty , 1 8 percent . Ver y fe w father s receiv e chil d support , and th e amount s indicat e a n unequa l distribution—tha t is , les s support i s ordered—a s compare d t o similarl y situate d women . Th e pattern o f lo w income s i s presen t fo r custodia l an d noncustodia l fathers.15 Despite th e greate r economi c advantage s o f single-fathe r families , the childre n i n thes e familie s d o not d o substantially better , arguabl y defeating th e fathe r absenc e theorist s bu t confirmin g th e two-is better-than-one theories . O r perhap s i t simpl y confound s every thing, becaus e suc h a variety o f explanation s i s possible . On e stud y theorizes tha t wome n d o better a t deliverin g interpersona l skill s an d men d o better a t meetin g economi c needs, s o you nee d bot h fo r kids . Most mal e singl e parent s ar e noncustodial , occasiona l parents ,

5 0 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

ranging fro m thos e wh o maintai n regula r visitatio n t o thos e wh o have severe d al l excep t th e lega l link s wit h thei r children . Th e number o f never-marrie d custodia l father s wh o activel y nurtur e their childre n i s eve n smalle r an d rarel y studied . Singl e father s remain unacknowledged , o r viewe d a s od d o r unusual . The y ar e condemned onl y fo r th e failur e t o perform a s economic parents . The pai n o f divorc e fo r thes e father s ofte n translate s int o lac k o f connection. Childre n nee d regula r an d frequen t visitatio n withou t conflict. Accordin g t o on e nationa l survey , however , father s average d only tw o visit s pe r mont h severa l year s afte r divorce , an d almost half of the children had not seen their fathers in the past year. Th e strength o f th e parentin g relationshi p prio r t o divorc e i s not a stron g factor i n predictin g postdivorc e involvemen t b y fathers ; rather , th e relationship wit h th e ex-wif e i s most significant . Th e boundaries an d configurations o f th e postdivorc e famil y ar e muddled , an d th e rol e of th e noncustodia l paren t i s no t a t al l clear . Factor s tha t contribute d to involve d parentin g i n on e stud y wer e satisfactio n wit h parenting , perception o f influencin g child' s life , an d geographica l proximit y t o children. The patter n o f fathe r absenc e i s quit e strong : fo r childre n unde r age three, father s ar e present fo r 7 0 percent o f white children , fo r 5 9 percent o f Hispani c children , an d fo r 2 2 percen t o f Blac k children . The likelihoo d o f fathe r presenc e increase s wit h th e ag e o f th e mother a t th e child' s birth . Fathe r presenc e ha s th e greates t impac t for whit e childre n an d childre n wit h olde r mothers . Interestingly , the greate r occurrenc e o f fathe r absenc e amon g Blac k families make s father absenc e les s problematic : ther e i s les s stigm a an d mor e com pensatory socia l an d economi c suppor t systems . The practic e o f singl e parenthoo d i s therefor e remarkabl y differ ent fo r mother s an d fathers , mirrorin g th e Parsonia n divid e in famil y roles. Overwhelmingly , mother s "do " caretakin g an d father s "do " support. Mother s continu e t o d o th e unpai d wor k o f childcar e whic h has a negativ e impac t o n thei r economi c position . Father s remai n primarily economi c fathers , althoug h historicall y an d currentl y a significant numbe r hav e avoide d economi c responsibilit y a s well. Despite o r perhaps because o f fathers' limite d role , social scientist s have give n father s wh o ar e stron g nurturin g parent s supportive , even rav e reviews ; considerabl e attentio n fro m th e lega l syste m ha s been place d o n nurturin g fathers . Father s hav e bee n foun d t o b e a s

5i / The Realities competent a t parentin g a s mothers, despit e stron g cultura l model s t o the contrar y (Warsha k 1986,199 ; Grei f 1985 , 77; Risman 1986,101) . Social scientists have applauded fathers ' competenc e a s extraordinar y but als o rare . As on e researche r notes , "o n th e on e hand , w e assum e the fathe r i s a n extraordinar y man . . . . On th e other , w e assum e h e needs ou r help " (Grei f 1985) . This sympatheti c vie w o f father s wit h custody i s in contras t wit h th e vie w o f noncustodia l fathers , wh o ar e expected t o accep t th e los s o f thei r children , eve n i f the y technicall y retain th e statu s o f a joint parent . Although societ y furnishes model s of conduct and defines th e roles of married men, it does not do so for men that are divorced. . . . This sense of a 'social void' accounts for the findings. . . that divorced fa thers claim that they have lost their identity and roots. Divorced fa thers view their lives as lacking in structure, and are troubled by feelings of loss, guilt, anxiety and depression. (Guttma n 1989 , 248) Fathers respon d t o th e difficult y o f single-paren t statu s b y givin g u p being a parent . Finally, gende r storie s justifyin g stigm a als o reflec t mainstrea m views o n ga y an d lesbia n parents . Homophobi a overwhelm s an y preference fo r a two-paren t family ; court s ofte n prefe r a singl e parent t o tw o parent s o f th e sam e sex. 16 Th e la w als o tend s t o trea t all homosexua l parent s a s singl e parent s b y prohibitin g marriag e o f same-sex couple s an d limiting , i f allowin g a t all , th e us e o f adoptio n to creat e a family. 17 Th e law' s discouragemen t o r prohibitio n o f ga y parenting flie s i n th e fac e o f studie s showin g n o detrimenta l impac t to childre n o f thei r parents ' homosexuality , an d increase d likelihoo d of coequa l parentin g i n same-se x household s (Gottma n 1989 , 186). 18 Race an d gende r justifications operat e differentl y fro m othe r jus tifications fo r stigmatizin g single-paren t familie s becaus e the y ar e more subtl e an d unarticulated , althoug h ofte n no t fa r belo w th e surface. The y ar e n o les s powerful; t o th e contrary , i t i s these under lying stereotype s an d assumption s tha t ma y operat e mos t power fully t o creat e an d perpetuat e stigma . Stigma base d o n thes e justifications i s unfounded an d unjustified . It i s contradicte d b y th e realitie s o f th e live s o f singl e parents . Th e negative consequence s falsel y associate d wit h th e form o f famil y ar e strongly linke d t o poverty, cause d no t b y famil y form , bu t rathe r b y a number o f factor s includin g th e operatio n o f th e lega l system . La w both incorporate s an d create s stigma . Th e structure s o f divorc e an d

5 2 / MYTH S & REALITIE S

welfare assis t i n creatin g an d perpetuatin g povert y amon g single parent families . Ironically , stron g lega l ideologie s o f equalit y an d choice justify an d ofte n hid e hars h inequalit y an d punishment . Law affects singl e parent s bot h b y recognizin g thei r famil y struc ture i n way s tha t trea t i t a s a distinctive status , an d b y th e structura l impact o f th e la w i n thei r lives . Singl e parent s arguabl y ar e mor e affected b y legal structure s tha n two-paren t marita l families , becaus e of th e impac t o f th e structur e o f divorc e an d th e welfar e system . Those tw o lega l structure s significantl y impac t thei r dail y lives , especially thei r economi c life , i n a wa y tha t stigmatizes , devalues , subordinates, an d ignore s single-paren t families . Thi s ha s star k con sequences fo r th e childre n i n thes e families . In par t I I I explor e ho w th e la w stigmatize s singl e parent s b y looking separatel y a t divorce d an d never-marrie d singl e parents .

CHAPTER 3

Divorced Single Parents

Law reflect s an d implement s stigm a b y mean s o f statu s an d struc ture. B y far , th e mor e seriou s consequence s fo r divorce d single parent familie s flo w fro m structura l stigm a a s oppose d t o status . Family law , employmen t law , an d welfar e la w interact t o impoveris h single parents . I n doin g so , the y incorporat e existin g socia l stigm a and creat e ne w stigma . Th e la w justifie s stigm a a s necessar y o r simply consequential , base d o n rationalization s tha t ech o th e myth s previously explore d a s justification s fo r stigma . Actin g withi n a context o f inequalit y frame d b y gende r an d race , la w use s th e lan guage an d mode l o f equalit y an d choic e t o rationaliz e an d obscur e the heav y sanctio n impose d o n singl e parenting . This interconnecte d structur e operate s upo n a well-define d wor k and famil y framework . I t i s essentia l t o sketc h tha t framewor k i n order t o understan d ho w i t interact s wit h th e lega l regime s whic h construct th e live s o f divorce d singl e parents . I n th e section s o f thi s chapter whic h follo w I map th e contex t o f wor k an d famil y an d the n examine th e interconnectio n o f famil y law , employmen t law , an d 55

5 6 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

welfare a s they affec t th e realitie s o f singl e parent s a t divorce . In th e final sectio n I summariz e thi s interconnection , focusin g o n mecha nisms whereb y th e powerfu l ideologie s o f equalit y an d choic e o f family la w an d employmen t la w construc t an d justif y stigmatizin g single-parent families .

THE CONTEX T O F WOR K AN D FAMIL Y Understanding th e socia l constructio n o f wor k an d famil y i s critica l to evaluatin g th e impac t o f legal structures o n divorce d single-paren t families. Th e patter n o f wor k an d famil y responsibilitie s continue s to b e strongl y gendered . Traditionally , th e gende r rol e allocatio n o f work an d famil y responsibilitie s dictate d tha t father s wor k i n th e wage workforce, whil e mother s car e for childre n an d th e home . Eve n currently, s o fe w wome n an d me n structur e th e allocatio n t o th e contrary tha t w e continu e t o spea k o f suc h allocation s a s a "switch " and conceiv e o f father s an d mother s i n suc h situation s a s "unnatu ral," deviant , o r actin g ou t o f necessity . Bu t th e traditiona l idea l ha s become a minorit y famil y pattern : les s tha n 1 0 percen t o f familie s with childre n unde r ag e eightee n confor m t o th e patter n o f a single male breadwinne r an d a femal e stay-at-hom e spous e (Dow d 1993) . Most me n wit h childre n ar e i n th e workforce , an d mos t wome n ar e as well. The stronges t vestig e o f th e traditiona l patter n continue s onl y fo r very youn g children . Forty-fiv e percen t o f mothers o f children unde r age fou r ar e a t hom e (Nationa l Researc h Counci l 1990) . A s thei r children gro w older , mos t o f thes e mother s wil l retur n t o wor k rather tha n sta y a t home unti l thei r childre n reac h th e ag e o f major ity. Seventy-five percen t o f marrie d wome n wit h childre n age s si x t o seventeen participat e i n th e labo r force , a s do 78 percent o f widowed , divorced o r separate d women , an d 7 0 percen t o f single , never-mar ried wome n (Burea u o f Censu s 1994 ; Nationa l Researc h Counci l 1990). The traditiona l patter n o f wome n carin g fo r childre n an d th e home does persist , however , despit e women' s participatio n i n wag e work. I f someon e stay s hom e t o d o caretaking , mos t ofte n i t wil l b e a mother . Whethe r o r no t the y ar e doin g wag e work , wome n con tinue t o d o mos t o f th e househol d an d caretakin g work . Althoug h

57 / Divorced Single Parents many me n hav e conceptualize d a broade r rol e o f fatherin g beyon d the rol e o f breadwinner an d have expande d thei r famil y responsibili ties, othe r me n hav e no t significantl y expande d thei r househol d or child-car e responsibilities . Mothers ' an d fathers ' distinctiv e role s persist acros s clas s an d rac e line s an d ar e presen t throughou t th e work lif e o f me n an d women, despit e significan t change s i n women' s work patterns . Wome n ar e fa r mor e likel y t o accommodat e wor k t o family, b y thei r choic e o f job, by thei r choic e o f flexibl e hours , o r b y limiting thei r wag e work t o part-tim e work . In evaluatin g wor k an d famil y patterns , i t i s importan t no t t o limit th e inquir y t o the tim e spen t o n chil d car e and househol d tasks . There i s menta l a s wel l a s physica l energ y involve d i n caretaking . The psychologica l aspec t o f thi s analysi s i s complex . First , i t seem s that me n an d wome n thin k mor e equall y tha n the y act ; the y ar e verbally committe d t o egalitaria n ideals , but th e allocatio n o f famil y tasks t o wome n i s stil l phenomenall y high . Second , whil e me n hav e taken ove r som e famil y work , especiall y th e car e o f children , the y have no t take n ove r responsibility, i n th e sens e o f plannin g an d thinking, shor t ter m an d lon g term . Tha t responsibilit y i s lef t t o women. Third , th e pattern s ar e strongl y tie d t o gender , no t t o in come differentials ; th e nonegalitaria n patter n i s found i n household s where wome n consistentl y contribut e 4 0 percen t o f famil y income , across incom e levels . Th e pattern , then , i s me n providin g assistanc e to women, no t a pattern o f primar y caretakin g b y bot h spouses . I t i s usually wome n wh o "anticipat e needs , remembe r schedules , an d s o forth" (Lesli e 1991 , 209) . Me n bac k u p women , an d tha t i s no t insignificant. Men' s suppor t o f women, however , confirm s th e mode l of caretakin g no t a s a coequa l one , bu t rathe r a s on e o f interrelate d inequality. I n th e patriarcha l model , th e backu p caretake r generall y has th e powe r an d th e mone y i n th e relationship . The reconstructio n o f traditiona l gende r role s als o i s eviden t b y comparing th e work-family responsibilitie s o f women i n dual-paren t and single-paren t families . Whe n w e compar e dual-paren t an d sin gle-parent families , wha t i s strikin g i s th e similarit y o f wor k an d family patterns . Thes e pattern s sugges t tha t single-paren t familie s are constructe d withi n dual-paren t families . I n tha t respect , th e strongly gendere d patter n o f single-paren t familie s expose s th e rec reation o f patriarch y amids t equalit y rhetoric . Work demand s o n wome n ar e no t distinguishabl e betwee n mar -

5 8 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

ried an d single-parent households . Indeed, i f anything, women spen d less tim e workin g a t hom e i n a single-paren t household , oreflectin g a reductio n i n home-relate d responsibilitie s (Burde n 1986 , 40) . Moreover, ther e ar e no significan t difference s i n job-family manage ment, rol e strain , o r numbe r o f chil d problem s (40). 1 Wor k i n th e household i s still divided alon g gende r lines , with wome n o n averag e performing thre e time s a s man y domesti c task s a s me n (Thompso n and Walke r 1989) . Du e t o th e allocatio n o f sol e o r primar y wag e work t o father s i n mos t households , mos t childre n i n dual-paren t households ar e essentiall y fatherles s durin g mos t o f thei r wakin g hours. 2 The imbalanc e o f wor k an d famil y responsibilitie s powerfull y affects bot h me n an d women . Becaus e o f actua l o r perceive d famil y responsibilities, wome n d o no t hav e th e sam e wor k opportunitie s a s men. Employers ' perception s o f women' s famil y responsibilitie s ar e so stron g tha t al l women , regardles s o f whethe r o r no t the y hav e children, ar e affecte d b y th e perceive d impac t o f famil y responsibili ties o n thei r rol e a s employees . Persisten t se x discriminatio n i s strongly connecte d t o women's perceive d famil y role . The structur e o f wor k an d famil y polic y ha s don e littl e t o chang e this. T o the limite d exten t tha t publi c polic y ha s deal t wit h family , i t has been buil t aroun d pregnanc y a s disability, establishin g th e work place a s a neutra l spher e wher e wome n confron t th e sam e term s a s men. I t is not a policy frame d i n term s o f maximizin g th e protectio n of famil y lif e o r collectiv e socia l responsibilit y an d valuin g o f chil dren (Wright-Carozz a 1993 , 571-77). I t i s a structur e an d discours e that leave s childre n ou t o f publi c spaces, an d emphasize s th e vie w o f the worke r a s an individua l (Wright-Carozz a 1993) . Women's continuin g economi c disadvantag e du e t o workplace dis crimination translate s int o subordinatio n withi n th e family . Com parison o f wome n withi n dual-paren t an d single-paren t household s reveals potentia l economi c vulnerabilit y an d dominatio n i n th e for mer. Recen t researc h conclude s tha t wome n ca n experienc e povert y within marriag e an d tha t singl e parenthoo d ma y i n som e instance s be an improvemen t i n women' s livin g standard . Women's povert y withi n marriag e i s simpl y les s visibl e poverty . It i s based o n th e combinatio n o f responsibilit y fo r unpai d domesti c work plu s low-pai d marke t work , whic h result s i n economi c depen dency fo r wome n an d th e childre n fo r who m the y ar e th e primar y caregivers. Thus , th e shif t fro m dua l t o singl e parenthoo d i s ofte n

59 / Divorced Single Parents not a shif t fro m well-bein g t o poverty , bu t rathe r a shif t fro m on e kind o f povert y t o another . An d fo r som e women , singl e parenthoo d is "no t onl y a differen t bu t a preferabl e kin d o f poverty " (Wright Carozza 1993) . I n on e study , ove r hal f o f th e wome n ha d bee n battered b y thei r partners ; becomin g a singl e paren t remove d vio lence a s par t o f th e pric e o f acces s t o economi c resource s (Wright Carozza 1993 ; Mahone y 1991) . I n contras t t o th e marita l arrange ment wher e husband s commonl y control resource s whil e wive s commonly manage resources , singl e mother s hav e bot h contro l an d management. No t onl y d o they avoi d marita l fight s ove r money , bu t they ar e abl e to make differen t choice s i n allocatin g scarc e resources . The povert y o f singl e mother s i s no t cause d b y lon e parenthoo d but rathe r ha s it s root s i n th e sexua l divisio n o f labo r i n th e famil y and continuin g sexua l discriminatio n i n th e workplace . "Fo r lon e mothers thei r se x rathe r tha n thei r marita l statu s i s th e rea l ke y t o understanding wh y the y ar e poor " (Milla r 1989) . Th e povert y o f single mother s i s particularl y tie d t o th e consequence s o f childcare , which als o contribut e dramaticall y t o women' s lac k o f economi c independence withi n marriage . Mor e critica l tha n th e direc t cost s o f childcare ar e th e indirec t costs , including th e impac t o f a break fro m the workforc e o r deviatio n fro m th e standar d forty-plus-hou r wor k week. B y on e estimate , base d o n a n eight-yea r brea k fro m employ ment fo r a mothe r wit h tw o childre n wh o return s t o part-tim e employment, th e mothe r woul d lose , ove r he r lifetime , nearl y hal f of wha t sh e woul d hav e earne d ha d sh e remaine d childles s (Milla r 1989).3 Th e impac t o f th e existin g wor k structur e require s "under standing ho w pai d employmen t ha s bee n constructe d i n industria l society a s a gendere d (male ) for m o f work . . . . Wome n wh o ente r conventionally male-define d career s d o 'nee d a wife / a s th e com plaint goes , becaus e th e expectation s buil t int o th e structur e o f th e job an d th e workplac e tak e suc h a full-tim e suppor t syste m fo r granted" (Ferre e 1990) . Placed i n th e socia l contex t o f wor k an d family , th e single-paren t family i s create d withi n th e marita l famil y whic h harbinger s th e common parentin g pattern s a t divorce . I n tha t sense , every parent is a single parent, generally following a gendered parenting role. Mothers' parentin g i s characterize d b y al l o r th e vas t majorit y o f unwaged househol d wor k an d caretaking , combine d wit h wag e wor k constrained b y th e rea l o r imagine d responsibilitie s o f parenting . Fathers' parenting , o n th e othe r hand , i s characterize d b y economi c

6 o / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

caretaking a s the primary althoug h n o longer th e sole , responsibility , combined wit h minima l caretakin g an d househol d work . Afte r di vorce, mos t childre n wil l live solel y o r primaril y wit h thei r mothers , and b e care d fo r nearl y exclusivel y b y them . Father s d o littl e o r n o caretaking afte r divorce , and many abando n eve n minima l caretakin g within severa l year s o f divorce . Furthermore , man y father s giv e u p economic parentin g a s wel l a t divorc e o r shortl y thereafter . Despit e continuous strengthenin g o f th e chil d suppor t law s sinc e 1975 , th e low percentage o f paymen t ha s no t dramaticall y changed . In a dual-paren t famil y w e ca n believ e parenta l choic e explain s gendered pattern s an d outcomes . I n th e single-paren t famil y tha t facade i s no t present . Rather , th e star k realit y o f th e gendere d struc ture o f famil y an d wor k i s unmistakabl y evident . Th e consequence s of "choices' ' mad e i n dual-paren t familie s distributin g wor k an d family responsibilities , mos t ofte n alon g predictabl e gende r lines , i s economic devastatio n an d emotiona l abandonmen t i f th e patriarcha l tie i s broken . Operatin g i n a contex t o f inequality , supporte d b y th e rhetoric o f equality , famil y an d employmen t la w at divorc e to o ofte n makes povert y th e consequenc e o f singl e parenting .

FAMILY LA W At divorce , th e single-paren t structur e tha t exist s within marriag e i s reconstituted a s a devalue d famil y form . Th e structur e o f divorc e law create s an d perpetuate s povert y a s th e pric e o f creatin g single parent families . Th e la w als o permits th e abandonmen t o f caretakin g responsibilities, usuall y b y fathers , allowin g th e surrende r o f al l responsibility t o on e parent , usuall y mothers , wh o ofte n tak e o n de jure wha t ha s bee n de facto sol e caretakin g responsibility . Th e emergence o f th e typica l single-paren t famil y a t divorc e i s entirel y predictable, base d o n th e contex t o f wor k an d famil y relationship s during marriag e an d th e wa y i n whic h la w structure s familie s a t divorce. General Principles of Divorce Law Certain identifiabl e principles , varyin g b y degre e i n particula r juris dictions bu t consisten t overall , infor m th e curren t divorc e structure . Although th e vas t majorit y o f divorc e i s resolve d b y agreement , i n

61 / Divorced Single Parents the for m o f settlement , thos e rule s nevertheles s affec t th e shap e o f settlement a s wel l a s ou r socia l visio n o f th e for m an d functio n o f the postdivorce family . Thos e principles consis t o f the following : tha t no part y wil l b e hel d a t fault ; tha t eac h part y shoul d leav e th e marriage wit h a roughly equa l shar e o f propert y create d o r acquire d during th e marriag e b y financia l o r othe r contributions ; tha t neithe r party ha s a long-ter m financia l obligatio n t o th e othe r part y a s a result o f th e marriage ; tha t th e partie s wil l continu e t o shar e i n th e parenting an d financia l suppor t o f mino r children ; an d tha t neithe r finances no r childre n wil l b e allocate d o n othe r tha n gender-neutra l principles (Czapanski y 1991 , 1989; Dolgi n 1994 ; Esti n 1993 ; Singe r 1993; Starne s 1993) . These principle s presum e tha t marriag e i s a partnershi p amon g equals who shar e work an d famil y responsibilitie s equitabl y an d wh o have equa l opportunitie s t o structur e thei r privat e lives , as well a s t o choose fro m a n equa l rang e o f option s i n th e wag e workforce . An y variation fro m a n equa l (meanin g similar ) divisio n o f role s an d responsibilities i s understood a s the produc t o f choice . With respec t t o postdivorc e conditions , th e principle s presum e that eac h spous e ca n functio n independentl y o n th e sam e term s a s he o r sh e di d durin g th e marriage , limite d onl y b y hi s o r he r individual effor t an d accomplishment s i n th e labo r market . A spous e with a shortfal l o f incom e ca n compensat e b y takin g advantag e o f opportunities i n th e wag e labo r market . A spous e wit h a shortfal l o f time fo r domesti c wor k ca n purchas e childcar e an d housewor k ser vices. A spous e wit h a n exces s o f childcar e responsibilitie s ca n rel y on incom e provide d pursuan t t o share d financia l suppor t o f childre n to supplement incom e o r financ e car e of childre n i n orde r t o d o wage work, an d ca n als o rel y o n th e othe r paren t t o provid e childcar e a s part o f share d parenting . Thi s postdivorc e mode l presume s tha t an y interruption o f wag e wor k o r modificatio n o f wor k behavio r i n response t o famil y responsibilitie s durin g th e marriag e ca n b e over come by makin g differen t choice s in labor marke t wor k afte r divorce . In othe r words , eac h partne r resume s th e positio n h e o r sh e ha d before th e marriage , a s modifie d b y hi s o r he r responsibilit y fo r parenting children . Sinc e parentin g responsibilit y i s shared , a s i t i s presumed wa s don e durin g th e marriage , th e burde n o f parentin g i s presumed t o b e equall y distribute d betwee n tw o independen t self supporting adults .

6 2 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

The realitie s o f divorce d single-paren t familie s ar e starkl y a t odd s with thes e presumptions . Th e patter n o f divorc e i s on e o f strikin g inequality, spli t alon g clea r gende r lines . Me n an d wome n continu e to emerg e fro m divorc e a t opposit e economi c poles : men' s financia l position improves , while women's sharpl y decline s (Weitzma n 1985) . The labo r marke t doe s no t correc t thes e inequalities ; instead , th e marked patter n o f se x segregatio n an d wag e inequit y frustrate s women's attempt s t o equaliz e th e economi c imbalanc e o f divorce , despite th e divorc e system' s relianc e o n th e abilit y o f eac h paren t t o generate additiona l incom e i f needed . The caretakin g pattern s ar e equall y gendered . Sol e o r primar y custody i s overwhelmingl y grante d t o mother s (Weitzma n an d Dixon 1979 ; Mnooki n e t al . 1990) . Mos t estimate s stil l pu t mothe r custody a t abou t 9 0 percent . Th e vas t majorit y o f custod y i s desig nated b y agreemen t rathe r tha n b y litigation . I n conteste d custod y cases, however , ther e i s evidenc e tha t father s ar e surprisingl y suc cessful (Polikof f 1982) . Many father s withou t custody , however , abando n thei r relation ships wit h thei r children , usuall y withi n tw o year s o f divorc e (Cza panskiy 1989) . Nonvisitation seem s to occur in about fifty percen t of the cases. . . . For about one-third of the children of divorce, it means that they will not see their noncustodial parent at all after th e first yea r of separation. Very few ever sleep at the home of the noncustodial parent or do daily activities with them. Instead, their contact is sporadic and primarily social. Fewer than one-fifth wil l have contact with the noncustodial parent on a weekly basis. (Czapanskiy 1991, 1449) According t o anothe r study , onl y on e chil d i n si x sa w hi s o r he r father weekly ; anothe r on e i n si x sa w hi s o r he r fathe r les s ofte n than onc e a month bu t mor e ofte n tha n onc e a year; an d nearl y hal f of th e childre n ha d no t see n thei r fathe r i n th e previou s twelv e months (Furstenber g an d Cherli n 1991) . Te n year s afte r divorce , according t o th e sam e study , onl y on e i n te n childre n ha d contact , while nearl y two-third s ha d n o contac t i n th e prio r yea r (Fursten berg an d Cherli n 1991) . Whe n father s abando n thei r nurturin g relationship, the y also , usually , abando n economi c suppor t o f thei r children (Pearso n an d Thoenne s 1988) . Th e leve l o f paterna l aban donment i s high, an d th e lac k o f discussio n abou t i t disturbing . Rather tha n supportin g equality , th e structur e o f divorc e la w

6} I Divorced Single Parents seems designe d t o creat e stigm a o r a t leas t t o d o nothin g t o preven t it. Curren t divorc e rule s creat e povert y b y ignorin g socia l role s created withi n marriag e an d barrier s t o opportunit y an d choic e i n the labo r market . Unde r th e guis e o f equalit y an d choice , divorce la w has recreated , o r eve n worsened , th e explici t gende r hierarch y o f earlier lega l regimes . Singl e custodia l parents , especiall y singl e mothers, ar e penalize d fo r divorc e b y impoverishment . I n turn , the y are blamed fo r th e consequence s o f povert y fo r thei r children . At th e same time , unti l recently , th e lega l syste m ha s largel y permitte d noncustodial parents , mostl y fathers , t o escap e financia l responsibil ity without consequence , blame , o r stigma . The experienc e o f singl e parentin g fo r wome n an d me n afte r divorce is remarkably different , an d that differenc e i s accepted withi n the equalit y regime . Arguably , tha t ver y inequalit y i s structure d by the equalit y regime . Under th e curren t lega l regime , what i s missin g is th e rol e o f unwage d wor k i n th e famil y econom y an d th e conse quences o f children' s dependency . Wha t als o seem s t o b e missin g i s a reconceptualizatio n o f wor k an d famil y t o reflec t mor e accuratel y the consequence s o f a n econom y i n whic h mor e tha n on e incom e i s essential fo r th e suppor t o f mos t families . Finally , th e lega l regime s lack a vision o f gende r equalit y an d nonsubordinatin g gende r roles , and instea d revea l th e strikin g persistenc e o f traditional , patriarcha l gender role s despit e th e rhetori c o f gender-neutra l equalit y Economic! financial The financia l consequence s o f divorc e ca n b e subdivide d int o ali mony, propert y division , an d chil d support . Alimon y ha s shifte d from a dut y o f suppor t fo r lif e t o a short-ter m transitiona l for m o f financial support . I t is presumed tha t th e labor marke t provide s equa l opportunity t o bot h spouses ; tha t bot h spouse s likel y wil l wor k during th e marriage ; an d tha t an y hiatu s fro m th e marke t ca n be overcome , o r a shif t fro m part-tim e t o full-tim e wor k ca n b e accomplished, withou t majo r difficult y o r impac t upo n lon g rang e earning capacity . The ideal is autonomy an d sel f reliance . Alimony i s available onl y upo n a showin g o f need , dependency , o r incapacita tion. Curren t inabilit y t o be self-supportin g i s cured b y "rehabilitat ing" th e dependen t spous e int o a n independen t wag e earner . Car e o f children, eve n youn g children , i s no t usuall y a sufficien t reaso n fo r

64 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

even short-ter m alimony . A s on e commentato r ha s pointe d out , caregiving ha s simpl y disappeare d fro m th e rationalizatio n fo r ali mony; jus t as , arguably , i t ha s becom e invisibl e throughou t famil y law a t divorc e (Esti n 1993) . Caregiving i s onl y considere d i n a limite d way . First , i t ma y b e a basis t o permi t temporar y maintenanc e unti l th e childre n reac h a specified age , particularly t o provid e car e to very youn g children . A t least on e stud y indicates , however , tha t temporar y suppor t provis ions i n realit y ar e rarel y use d fo r thi s purpos e (Esti n 1993) . Second , the caregive r ma y b e compensate d fo r th e consequence s o f puttin g wage wor k opportunitie s o n hold , bu t thi s i s factore d int o propert y division, an d i s no t a basi s fo r alimony . A significan t bod y o f la w supports providin g compensatio n fo r thi s contributio n o r loss , de pending upo n one' s perspective . The shif t i n principle s underlyin g alimon y ma y b e importan t i n theory bu t no t i n practic e because , jus t a s before , alimon y i s rarel y awarded. Propert y divisio n an d chil d suppor t ar e the primary source s of private suppor t betwee n divorce d parents. In these area s of divorc e law, th e principl e o f equalit y i s strongl y expressed . I n propert y division, th e principl e o f equitabl e distribution , wit h a presumptio n of equa l contribution , b y monetar y o r nonmonetar y means , i s th e guiding principle . Th e goa l i s a one-tim e settlemen t o f finances , a clean financia l break . Althoug h th e concep t o f marita l propert y ha s dramatically expande d (e.g. , pensions , busines s an d professiona l goodwill), tha t whic h i s availabl e t o b e divide d i s not , i n mos t cases , a sufficien t economi c base o n whic h t o suppor t a family. Mos t mari tal estate s d o no t hav e muc h propert y t o divide , an d wha t propert y they d o hav e i s heavil y mortgaged . A larg e proportio n o f displace d homemakers los e thei r hous e i n th e divorc e proces s (Starne s 1993 , 86). Furthermore , th e presume d equalit y o f contributio n doe s no t address th e inequalit y o f postdivorc e consequence s i f on e spouse , usually th e woman , ha s foregon e opportunitie s i n th e labo r marke t which hav e lifelon g consequences . I t focuses, rather , o n losse s durin g the marriage , no t o n thei r postdivorc e implications . Th e propert y division mode l presume s a n abilit y t o supplemen t marita l propert y with employment . A s a consequence , th e dominan t patter n i s tha t women's incom e decline s a s thei r need s increase , whil e th e revers e occurs fo r men . Thes e pattern s persis t fo r year s afte r divorce , espe cially i f women d o not remarr y (Holde n an d Smoc k 1991 ; Weitzman 1981).

65 I Divorced Single Parents Between alimon y an d propert y division , therefore , mos t spouse s receive littl e o r n o resources . Chil d support , then , i s th e primar y financial consequenc e o f divorc e wher e mino r childre n ar e involved . Divorce la w conceive s o f chil d suppor t a s a n entitlemen t whic h run s to th e child , a conceptio n tha t ignore s th e interdependenc e o f th e child wit h th e primar y o r sol e caretaker . Th e la w o f chil d suppor t treats childre n a s a n independen t economi c unit . Althoug h equalit y is th e ideal , wit h eac h paren t expecte d t o suppor t th e child , court s calculate th e amoun t o f chil d suppor t pr o rat a base d o n income , an d consequently parenta l obligation s ar e no t likel y t o b e equa l give n typical mal e an d femal e wage-earnin g patterns . Suppor t i s calculate d by addin g th e incom e o f bot h parents , an d the n applyin g chil d support percentage , prorate d fo r eac h parent' s income . A t upper income level s th e cour t ha s discretio n ho w muc h abov e th e guide lines t o awar d (Ellma n e t al . 1991). Support amount s ar e characteristicall y lowe r tha n actua l expense s and lowe r tha n typica l familie s o f th e sam e incom e leve l woul d spend o n thei r children . Th e guideline s d o no t var y th e percentag e of incom e require d t o b e devote d t o children , ye t studie s sho w tha t as incom e rises , familie s spen d mor e o n children . Sinc e thi s i s no t taken int o account , th e averag e percentag e ma y therefor e b e consid erably lowe r tha n resource s expende d predivorce . Fo r example , fo r two children , 2 5 percen t o f incom e i s appropriat e accordin g t o th e guidelines, whil e two-incom e middle-clas s familie s actuall y expen d 40 percent o f thei r incom e o n thei r children . Change i n suppor t i s no t usuall y automatic . Fe w parent s ca n afford t o retur n t o cour t t o see k a modificatio n o f th e initia l chil d support order . Payment s commonl y decreas e a s childre n age , an d often en d a t ag e eighteen . No t surprisingly , ther e i s a clea r tren d o f downward economi c an d socia l mobilit y fo r childre n awarde d sup port unde r th e guidelines . The leve l o f suppor t actuall y pai d i s very low . A commo n patter n is nonpayment , coexistin g wit h th e lac k o f regula r contac t wit h children (Ellma n e t al . 1991 , 402-4) . Accordin g t o on e study , "[m]odal per-chil d order s . . . wer e approximatel y a t th e povert y standard an d onl y abou t one-thir d o f th e estimate d norma l level s o f expenditures o n childre n withi n intac t families . Thes e shortfall s appear t o b e consisten t wit h nationa l estimates' ' (Pearso n an d Thoennes 1988 , 328). 4 Federa l effort s ar e focuse d o n enforcement , not o n amount ; "th e amoun t o f mone y los t a s a result o f inadequat e

66 I

LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

orders i s fiv e time s a s grea t a s th e amoun t o f mone y los t a s a resul t of th e failur e t o collec t ordere d support " (Czapanski y 1989) . Enforcement o f suppor t i s a matte r o f individua l responsibility , not stat e intervention , unles s th e househol d i s o n welfare . I n man y states suppor t an d visitatio n ar e uncoupled , s o tha t failur e t o pa y support doe s not resul t i n denia l o f visitation. While court s recogniz e some nonmonetar y contributions , caretakin g b y th e primar y o r sol e parent i s ignored o r underestimate d i n suppor t calculations . The divorc e structur e fail s t o provid e sufficien t economi c re sources t o th e typica l single-paren t family . B y definin g equalit y o f parental responsibilit y i n a narro w wa y whic h take s a snapsho t o f resources a t on e momen t i n time , curren t an d futur e need s o f th e family ar e ignored . Th e consequence s fo r childre n ar e disastrous . The typicall y drasti c declin e i n incom e mos t immediatel y affect s housing an d education , whic h ha s bot h short - an d long-ter m conse quences. Educatio n i s th e singl e mos t critica l facto r i n children' s future opportunities. 5 Many believ e tha t th e labo r marke t i s th e answe r t o th e proble m of impoverishmen t amon g singl e mothers . However , a s mor e full y explored below , th e labo r marke t provide s n o assuranc e t o wome n that i t wil l operat e an y mor e fairl y a t divorc e tha n i t di d durin g marriage. Regardles s o f one' s parentin g status , jobs tha t respec t an d support parentin g responsibility , o r tha t adequatel y suppor t a famil y on a singl e income , ar e scarc e o r nonexistent . Furthermore , t o th e extent tha t mother s wor k full-tim e o r atten d schoo l full-tim e i n order t o improv e thei r competitivenes s i n th e workforce , th e work force solutio n pose s th e ris k o f losin g custody . A s describe d i n chap ter 2 , som e court s hav e sanctione d singl e parents ' choice s t o wor k full-time o r atten d schoo l b y usin g suc h choice s a s justification fo r an awar d o f custod y t o th e othe r parent . Parenting/f Custody Just a s th e economi c principle s allocat e resource s unequally , th e divorce structur e distribute s actua l caregiving an d othe r responsibili ties o n a highl y unequa l basis . Moreover , th e inequalit y i s a s strongly gender-differentiate d a s th e economi c consequence s o f di vorce. Despite gender-neutral rule s an d a preference i n most jurisdictions fo r join t custody , mos t wome n continu e t o provid e primar y o r

6y I Divorced Single Parents sole nurturin g fo r thei r childre n afte r divorc e (Maccob y an d Mnoo kin 1992 ; Furstenber g an d Cherli n 1991) . Althoug h me n hav e in creased thei r shar e o f parenting , th e overal l patter n ha s no t change d significantly. Furthermore , th e theoretica l predispositio n fo r join t custody ha s resulte d i n lowe r level s o f chil d suppor t unde r tha t custody framework , eve n i f actua l custod y become s entirel y o r pre dominantly veste d i n th e mothe r (Fitzgeral d 1994 , 60). Although mos t divorce d childre n hav e tw o parents , sociall y an d legally w e d o no t deman d equa l caretakin g responsibilit y b y bot h parents. Thi s highl y unequa l caretakin g patter n ha s traditionall y included acceptanc e o f father s abandonin g th e rol e o f economi c a s well a s nurturin g parent . Althoug h a s a matte r o f socia l polic y w e continue t o rene w th e effor t t o enforc e economi c responsibilit y fo r children, w e continu e t o allo w withdrawa l fro m th e nurturin g role . Law arguabl y di d no t creat e th e patter n o f on e paren t a s th e sol e o r primary caretaker , bu t la w quietl y accept s voluntar y surrende r o f parenting withou t consequenc e o r rebuke . Th e la w assume s tha t shared lega l custod y an d gender-neutra l custod y rule s wil l solv e th e problem o f unequa l parenting . Nevertheless , equa l parentin g re mains a n illusio n fo r mos t mal e singl e parents . Man y me n hav e no t seized thei r opportunit y t o paren t durin g o r afte r thei r marriage . Emphasis o n an d expansio n o f fathers ' right s ha s no t resulte d i n significantly greate r paterna l nurturin g o f children . Perhap s thi s i s nowhere mor e clearl y symbolize d tha n i n th e fac t tha t "fathering " has no t shifte d i n meanin g t o mea n "nurturing " o r "caretaking " i n the sam e sens e tha t connotatio n applie s t o "mothering. " Rather , "fathering" continue s t o mea n sexua l reproduction , no t parenting . Socially, th e commo n phenomeno n o f th e uninvolve d divorce d father i s widel y accepted . Thi s ma y simpl y reflec t th e socia l accep tance o f materna l caregiving . Dat a o n th e impac t o f fatherin g postdi vorce ma y also , ironically, reinforc e fathe r absence . Increased contac t by father s postdivorc e doe s no t translat e int o bette r outcome s fo r children (Furstenber g an d Cherli n 1991 ; McLanaha n an d Sandefu r 1994). I n part , researcher s suggest , thi s i s becaus e th e natur e an d quality o f postdivorc e fatherin g i s characteristicall y minimal , mor e like a visito r o r a relativ e tha n a parent . I n part , i t i s becaus e fathering i n marita l familie s similarl y i s mother-centere d an d fa thers' rol e i s minimal (Furstenber g an d Cherli n 1991) . Family la w arguabl y i s no t th e primar y culprit , then , i n wide -

6 8 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

spread fathe r abandonment . Admittedl y som e courts , ou t o f mis placed gende r stereotyping , den y custod y o r visitatio n t o deservin g fathers, o r fai l t o enforc e fathers ' right s o f acces s t o thei r children . Some evidenc e suggest s tha t th e lega l syste m continue s t o favo r mothers i n term s o f custod y outcomes . On e stud y indicate s tha t mothers simpl y asser t thei r preference s mor e strongl y regardin g custody i n th e lega l syste m (Maccob y an d Mnooki n 1992) . But othe r research indicate s th e contrar y patter n o f men' s significan t succes s when seekin g custody , suggestin g tha t famil y la w strongl y support s father's right s to parent i f and when thos e rights ar e asserted (Kraus e 1990; Ellma n e t al . 1991 ; Grei f 1985 , 6-7) . Furthermore , a s note d earlier, th e nor m o f som e for m o f share d o r join t custod y i s wide spread. I f voluntar y abandonmen t o f relationship s wit h children , not lega l denia l o f suc h relationships , determine s mos t caretakin g patterns, the n famil y la w appears , t o a great extent , t o protec t main tenance o f father-chil d relationship s i f an d whe n father s elec t t o continue parenting . The failur e o f famil y la w with respec t t o father s i s no t tha t i t ha s failed t o increas e fathers ' rights , bu t rathe r tha t i t doe s no t requir e that father s fulfil l thei r nurturin g responsibilitie s no r doe s i t impos e consequences fo r th e failur e t o d o so . Any versio n o f custod y shor t of joint physica l custod y presume s les s tha n equa l paterna l involve ment. O n th e othe r hand , a n impose d structur e o f join t physica l custody defie s existin g caretakin g patterns , an d bot h join t lega l an d joint physica l custod y ca n to o easil y perpetuat e pattern s o f domi nance an d contro l rathe r tha n mutua l sharin g o f car e (Finema n 1991a). I n addition , i f th e righ t t o custod y exist s withou t a corres ponding dut y o r responsibilit y o f caretaking , an d i s couple d wit h a gendered patter n o f marita l househol d an d childcar e responsibility , then custodia l right s ma y b e twiste d int o a weapon t o den y support , rather tha n t o protec t fathers ' relationship s wit h thei r children . Indeed, man y father s hav e use d thei r custod y right s a s bargainin g chips i n orde r t o reduc e thei r economi c obligations . Th e powe r im balances betwee n me n an d wome n a t divorc e hav e lon g bee n docu mented, ye t w e hav e don e littl e i n th e equalit y structur e t o dea l with it . In addition , mos t custod y structure s d o no t impos e penaltie s o n fathers wh o fai l t o fulfil l eve n limite d nurturin g responsibilities . Custody arrangement s whic h permi t father s t o abando n nurturin g

69 / Divorced Single Parents responsibilities withou t economi c o r othe r compensatio n fo r th e lac k of caretakin g leave s father s free t o be "tak e i t o r leav e it" parents . The la w has, to a great extent , move d i n th e directio n o f acknowl edging th e equa l abilit y o f me n an d wome n t o rais e children , a t leas t in theory . Th e lega l structur e nee d no t abando n thi s position , bu t i t need no t stigmatiz e thos e families , currentl y th e majority , i n whic h parenting responsibilitie s ar e unequall y divided . Indeed , i t i s ironi c that th e la w permit s man y father s t o b e parent s i n littl e mor e tha n name (o r genes ) only , whil e condemnin g single-paren t familie s for , among othe r things , th e absenc e o f a father . Instea d o f seein g th e single-parent famil y a s inherentl y dysfunctional , th e la w shoul d recognize th e prevalenc e an d importanc e o f single-paren t families . Critical t o tha t recognitio n i s an understandin g o f th e actua l divisio n of caregivin g durin g marriag e an d afte r divorce , a s wel l a s under standing th e scop e o f children' s need s an d dependency , an d th e nature o f caregivin g an d househol d work . Thi s i s no t t o sa y tha t men's parentin g i s no t important , bu t rathe r tha t single-paren t par enting ha s bee n th e mos t commo n patter n o f parentin g withi n mar riage a s well a s after divorce . The vas t gul f betwee n famil y law' s theor y o f equalit y an d th e reality o f unequa l caregivin g i s ignore d b y placin g blam e o n single parent families . Singl e parent s ar e blame d fo r th e phenomen a o f financial impoverishmen t an d th e breakdow n o f parent-chil d rela tionships, focusin g attentio n awa y fro m th e structur e o f famil y la w and it s impac t upo n a highl y unequa l familia l structure . T o th e extent inequit y i s recognize d a t all , i t i s viewe d a s a produc t o f choice, capabl e o f chang e b y ne w choices . Th e abilit y t o chang e especially presume s th e availabilit y o f opportunit y i n th e workplace , reinforcing th e focu s awa y fro m th e equalit y an d choic e issue s within famil y law . Expecting singl e parent s t o resolv e thei r financia l difficulties i n th e workforce , wher e structura l constraint s an d short comings confoun d thei r abilit y t o succeed , simpl y create s furthe r blame o f single-paren t families . Shiftin g expectatio n t o th e work place no t onl y move s attentio n awa y fro m dealin g wit h dependenc y and unwage d work , bu t als o shift s evaluatio n o f single-paren t fami lies towar d a n aren a wher e choic e agai n ca n b e blamed fo r individu alized problems .

7 0 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

EMPLOYMENT LA W Expectations abou t th e labo r marke t pervad e divorc e law . Th e eco nomic structur e o f divorc e presume s th e abilit y o f singl e parent s t o be self-supportin g an d th e abilit y o f singl e parent s t o suppor t th e children o f th e marriag e o n on e salar y Th e divorc e structur e als o presumes tha t parent s hav e remaine d i n th e wag e labo r marke t during th e marriag e o r tha t th e marke t permit s withdrawa l fro m th e market o r accommodates children' s needs , as well as enabling parent s to resum e full-tim e wag e work . T o the exten t tha t divorc e presump tions fai l t o achiev e share d chil d suppor t an d parenting , famil y la w also presume s tha t th e labo r marke t i s flexibl e enoug h t o permi t time t o paren t o r th e abilit y t o generat e incom e t o bu y parentin g o r household services . Family law' s presumption s concernin g th e workplac e ar e grounded i n th e expectatio n tha t equalit y o f treatmen t an d opportu nity i s insure d b y th e nondiscriminatio n principl e o f employmen t law. Som e vie w th e increase d presenc e o f wome n i n th e workforce , particularly wome n wit h children , a s proo f o f nondiscrimination . In addition , gendere d pattern s o f workforc e participation , income , opportunity, an d jo b distributio n ar e viewe d a s th e produc t o f "choice/' no t discrimination . Actual condition s o f th e workplac e contradic t thes e presumptions . First, a substantia l proportio n o f job s d o no t provid e sufficien t in come o n whic h t o suppor t a family , thereb y challengin g th e notio n that an y perso n ca n suppor t a famil y o n a singl e income . Second , although bot h parent s wor k outsid e th e hom e i n man y dual-paren t families, pattern s o f labo r participatio n b y wome n ar e strikingl y different, reflectin g women' s disproportionat e childcar e responsibili ties. As a result, women' s presenc e in the workforce doe s not guaran tee her th e sam e income a s most men . Finally , th e labo r marke t take s an inflexibl e an d punitiv e stanc e towar d eve n short-ter m withdrawa l from th e workplace , a s well a s toward part-tim e work . Overall, th e labo r marke t ha s shifte d onl y slightl y t o accommo date demand s t o reconfigur e th e balanc e betwee n workin g an d par enting. Th e Famil y an d Medica l Leav e Ac t o f 199 3 entitle s covere d employees t o tak e twelv e week s o f unpai d leav e upo n th e birt h o r adoption o f a child, or for th e seriou s illnes s o f a n immediat e famil y member, or fo r th e employee' s ow n illness. 6 Onl y a n estimate d hal f

7i / Divorced Single Parents of th e workforce , however , i s covere d b y th e act . Employee s wh o d o not fal l withi n th e statute' s coverage , unles s the y ar e covere d b y state famil y leav e ac t provision s (als o unpaid) , ris k losin g thei r jo b simply fo r carin g fo r thei r childre n (Dow d 1993) . Providing regula r childcar e fo r workers ' childre n continue s t o b e a dauntin g task . Bot h th e quantit y an d qualit y o f childcar e remai n inadequate, an d th e nee d fo r childcar e an d th e inadequacie s o f th e current syste m ar e mos t pressin g fo r thos e wit h leas t income . Whil e parental leave , flexibl e wor k schedules , leav e fo r illnes s o r othe r childcare purposes , healt h insurance , an d othe r importan t benefit s are availabl e i n som e workplaces , the y ar e al l to o infrequen t i n others. The employmen t la w structure remain s primaril y oriente d t o the mal e breadwinne r rathe r tha n t o th e caretakin g parent , mal e o r female. Labor marke t policie s an d lega l structure s concernin g parentin g operate upo n a contex t o f stron g an d persisten t gende r differentials . Women d o no t hav e th e sam e opportunit y structur e a s men . A s one recen t stud y demonstrated , ver y littl e differentia l exist s i n th e employment patter n o f wome n wit h o r withou t children ; bot h wer e found t o b e significantl y disadvantage d a s compare d t o me n (Dow d 1993). Furthermore , th e absenc e o f childre n doe s no t translat e int o equality o f opportunity . Wome n d o no t hav e th e sam e choices , the y do no t mak e th e sam e income s eve n withi n th e sam e opportunit y structures, an d the y d o no t advanc e withi n labo r marke t hierarchie s at th e sam e rat e o r t o th e sam e height s a s men . Marriag e an d children exacerbat e thes e differences , bu t a s alread y noted , th e ab sence o f bot h marriag e an d childre n doe s no t eliminat e th e in equality. To a significan t degree , gende r differential s i n th e workplac e ar e accepted b y th e equalit y principl e o f antidiscriminatio n la w (Dow d 1989a). Although equalit y i s th e purporte d goa l o f employmen t law , employment la w fail s t o reac h significan t gende r inequality . I n part , this narro w reac h i s a produc t o f th e limitation s o f th e equalit y structure o f discriminatio n law , whic h focuse s primaril y o n barrier s and discrimination base d o n biological sex . The impact o f the la w ha s been fa r mor e ambiguou s an d equivoca l i n attackin g th e cultura l construction o f se x an d it s impac t o n th e workplace . Fo r example , although court s hav e clearl y establishe d tha t sexua l harassmen t i s a form o f discrimination , court s an d employer s frequentl y trivializ e

7 2 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

and ignor e sexua l harassment , blam e th e victim , o r view harassmen t as a n issu e o f workplac e cultur e unreachabl e b y la w Gende r stereo typing, whic h figure s prominentl y i n hiring , promotion , evaluation , as wel l a s othe r aspect s o f employment , ha s bee n struc k dow n b y courts whe n i t i s blatan t an d facial , bu t appear s les s reachabl e whe n it i s th e basi s fo r unconsciou s gende r discrimination . I n addition , courts regar d gende r segregation , whic h continue s t o restric t em ployment opportunities , a s largel y beyon d th e reac h o f equalit y guarantees, seein g i t a s a produc t o f choic e rathe r tha n o f legall y sanctioned employmen t policies . Generally , higher-paying , highe r status jobs ar e structured , on e wa y o r another , t o accommodat e me n more readil y tha n woman . Th e structurin g o f suc h jobs fo r employ ees withou t significan t caretakin g responsibilitie s i s no t discrimina tion withi n th e meanin g o f Titl e VII . A s a result , wome n an d me n face differen t choices : me n ca n b e idea l worker s an d fulfil l famil y obligations; women canno t (Schult z 1990,1756 ; Williams 1989 , 834 35). I n short , employmen t la w appear s t o permi t inequalit y because , as with famil y la w (an d perhaps i n conjunctio n wit h famil y law) , th e rhetoric o f equalit y an d choic e act s a s a barrie r o r limi t rathe r tha n as a floo r o f right s o r a weapo n t o insur e rea l opportunit y b y affirmative restructuring . Equality doe s no t guarante e an y particula r workplac e structure ; rather, i t onl y insure s equa l opportunit y o r acces s t o tha t structure . The absenc e o f structure s tha t woul d enhanc e equa l opportunit y cannot b e reached unde r existin g discriminatio n la w No r hav e litiga tors bee n successfu l i n challengin g existin g structure s a s gendered , that is , as male-defined o r male-oriented. Th e employmen t structur e continues t o be viewed a s objective an d neutral . Single mother s ar e harme d b y th e limitation s o f discriminatio n law and its inability o r unwillingness t o dismantle barrier s connecte d with sex stereotyping , se x segregation , an d sexua l harassment . Structural barrier s whic h mak e i t difficul t o r impossibl e t o combin e work an d famil y ar e perhap s th e greates t barrier s t o equalit y o f opportunity whic h singl e mother s face . Due t o th e absenc e o f an y meaningfu l acknowledgmen t o f famil y responsibilities an d thei r distributio n withi n families , an d o f th e needs o f children , equalit y an d choic e ar e illusion s i n a labor marke t that remain s largel y hostil e t o parenting . Employmen t la w doe s include structures suc h as unemployment compensatio n tha t attemp t

73 / Divorced Single Parents to preserv e th e economi c contributio n o f th e primar y breadwinne r and protec t th e economi c contribution s o f dua l o r secondar y bread winners. Beyon d unemploymen t compensation , employmen t struc tures fai l t o acknowledg e explicitl y th e rol e o f family . Famil y wor k is hidden , eve n invisible , an d no t eve n recognize d a s "work " a t al l because i t i s no t waged . Th e continue d refusa l o f th e la w t o accor d any recognitio n t o unwage d famil y an d childcar e wor k present s a significant proble m fo r al l families , bu t agai n i s exacerbate d fo r single-parent families , because , by definition , ther e ar e fewe r parent s in th e househol d t o d o th e work , bu t muc h o f th e wor k remains . While th e labo r market' s hostilit y towar d parentin g disadvantage s all wh o parent , i t disadvantage s wome n disproportionately . Tha t disadvantage i s exacerbate d stil l mor e fo r singl e mother s who , a s noted above , disproportionatel y assum e mos t parentin g responsibili ties i n single-paren t families . The lac k o f suppor t fo r parentin g als o effectivel y prevent s mor e involved an d extensiv e parentin g b y me n wh o wis h t o be mor e tha n an economic parent. Employmen t la w has faile d t o support structura l changes an d work-cultur e reorientatio n necessar y t o suppor t al l par enting, bu t ha s particularl y faile d t o chang e an d suppor t a child centered caregivin g mode l fo r fathers , a mode l tha t woul d benefi t all parents . Curren t la w doe s no t suppor t reconstitutin g fathers ' traditional gende r rol e fro m tha t o f a purely economi c father . The public/private dichotom y underlyin g employmen t law , whic h undercuts al l families , furthe r undermine s single-paren t families . From th e perspectiv e o f th e workplace , famil y i s private, a n expecte d support fo r th e workplac e bu t clearl y a secondary priorit y fo r work ers, fo r who m wor k mus t com e first . Moreover , viewe d fro m th e perspective o f employmen t law , th e rhetori c o f famil y equalit y sup ported b y famil y la w means tha t choice s mad e with respec t t o famil y which impac t wor k ar e freel y made , voluntar y choices . A s a result , to th e exten t tha t suc h choice s impac t one' s employment , the y ar e attributable t o th e employee . Th e structure s o f th e workplac e ar e viewed a s neutral, an d th e opportunit y structur e a s governed b y rea l equality. One migh t argu e tha t th e equalit y structure s i n wor k an d famil y law ar e merel y aspirational . Th e persistenc e o f inequalit y i s no t a sign o f th e inadequac y o f th e structures , bu t i s onl y a challeng e t o create bette r mean s t o th e end . On e coul d als o argu e tha t w e mus t

7 4 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

pay th e pric e o f gettin g t o equalit y b y sufferin g wit h inequality . I f we ameliorat e existin g inequalitie s w e ma y simpl y replicat e them . But wha t w e see m t o b e doin g i s perpetuatin g inequalit y wit h th e ideology o f equality . Th e positio n o f single-paren t familie s make s that clear . How is it that th e operatio n o f famil y an d employmen t law , which largely create s an d perpetuate s th e povert y o f single-paren t families , escapes scrutiny ? A s th e previou s discussio n o f employmen t la w suggests, the powerful intersectio n o f ideologies o f equality a s articu lated i n famil y an d employmen t la w serve s t o deflec t analysi s an d rationalizes stigma . Befor e analyzin g ho w thes e ideologie s wor k together, however , i t i s necessar y t o examin e on e fina l piec e o f th e legal structur e tha t impact s singl e parent s a t divorce : th e welfar e structure. Instea d o f providin g meaningfu l temporar y o r long-ter m support, th e welfar e structur e serve s t o penaliz e thos e wh o us e it s benefits. A s wit h famil y an d wor k law , the operatio n o f th e equalit y principle an d th e " choice" principl e a s applie d t o th e welfar e syste m masks an d justifies th e stigmatizin g o f single-paren t families .

WELFARE Although th e complexitie s o f welfar e meri t clos e analysis , thi s dis cussion i s limited t o welfare's plac e among th e lega l structure s facin g divorced singl e parents . Divorce d singl e parents , constitutin g nearl y half o f thos e goin g o n welfare , ar e th e larges t grou p o f entrant s o n AFDC. 7 Thi s statisti c confirm s th e utte r failur e o f famil y la w t o insure a decen t famil y suppor t structur e afte r marriag e an d th e perpetuation o f inequalit y durin g marriage . I t als o clearl y demon strates tha t th e pai d workplace provide s n o alternativ e relief , a s suc h a hig h proportio n o f divorce d wome n canno t fin d wor k sufficien t t o support thei r families . Because th e situatio n o f man y divorce d wome n i s no t temporary , nor ca n i t b e cure d (o r pas t har m recouped ) fo r substantia l number s of wome n i n th e foreseeabl e future , long-ter m welfar e i s a necessit y for man y divorce d singl e parents . Th e directio n o f curren t time limited welfar e refor m proposals , in contrast , cast s welfare a s tempo rary transitiona l assistanc e an d label s an y ongoin g need s a s individ ual dysfunction . Refor m proposal s appea r t o b e i n consensu s i n on e

75 / Divorced Single Parents respect: al l proposals ignor e actua l condition s fo r man y singl e moth ers afte r divorc e i n favo r o f continue d stigmatizatio n o f thos e o n welfare. The dua l equalit y structure s o f famil y an d employmen t la w in crease stigmatizatio n o f able-bodie d wome n o n welfare , mor e s o than a t an y poin t i n th e histor y o f th e welfar e program . Becaus e o f equality, i t i s argued , wome n hav e an d mak e choices : choice s abou t family, choice s regardin g work , an d choice s concernin g th e construc tion o f th e work-famil y relationships . Furthermore , unde r equality , most wome n d o wag e wor k a s wel l a s rais e families , includin g women wit h youn g children . I t i s therefor e reasonable , accordin g t o this view , t o requir e al l wome n t o perfor m wag e work ; wome n wh o do not, regardles s o f an y factor , ar e unworthy . The welfar e structur e implicitl y accept s th e highl y gendere d structure o f work an d famil y an d th e valu e o f th e patriarcha l family . Welfare benefit s provid e onl y th e mos t begrudgin g suppor t o f th e single-parent famil y bu t clearl y no t enoug h t o insur e a soli d oppor tunity fo r suppor t o r survival . Welfar e benefit s d o no t suppl y a sufficient suppor t framewor k fo r mos t single-paren t familie s t o maintain incom e level s abov e poverty , an d therefor e condem n thes e families t o th e consequence s o f poverty . Nevertheless , welfar e pro vides a superio r framewor k t o th e wag e wor k availabl e t o man y women wit h childre n an d therefor e encourage s man y single-paren t families t o remai n o n welfar e a s th e lesse r o f tw o evil s (Kamerma n and Kahn 1988, 155-56). Th e main reaso n fe w welfare mother s wor k is tha t i t i s har d t o ear n one' s wa y of f o f welfare , withou t highe r wages an d benefit s tha n low-skille d peopl e typicall y earn . Legislators' unwillingnes s t o provid e adequat e suppor t ma y b e tied t o fea r tha t t o d o s o woul d encourag e th e creatio n o f single parent families , despit e th e fac t tha t virtuall y n o evidenc e support s the vie w tha t welfar e create s single-paren t families . Welfar e permit s choice onl y t o th e sam e exten t tha t wag e wor k does ; it give s wome n some independenc e an d economi c means , howeve r flawed , t o leav e marriage. Moreover , a s Professor Marth a Finema n ha s argued , muc h of th e reaso n fo r th e failur e t o increas e benefit s lie s i n patriarcha l views o f th e superiorit y o f th e nuclea r family . Finema n argue s th e discourse aroun d welfar e identifie s motherhoo d withou t a ma n a s the "problem, " an d th e force d retur n o f th e man , i n th e for m o f enforced economi c support , a s th e "solution. " Singl e motherhood ,

j6 I

LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

then, i s viewe d a s a practic e o f resistanc e t o patriarchy , particularl y in a worl d wher e motherhoo d i s b y "choice " (Finema n 1991b) . Resistance justifies poo r treatment . More tha n ever , "welfare " i s a dirty word , perhap s a dirtie r wor d than "singl e parent. " Man y polic y maker s stigmatiz e welfar e i n order, i n thei r view , t o preven t laziness . I n doin g so , povert y i s presumed t o b e a n individua l failin g rathe r tha n a structura l prob lem. Th e welfar e structur e an d etho s fee d int o a n explanatio n fo r poverty o f individua l responsibilit y an d dysfunctio n tha t li e a t th e core o f th e stigm a attache d t o single-paren t families . Parallel s be tween th e stigm a attache d t o th e poo r an d singl e parents , an d con necting factor s o f gende r an d race , see m no t merel y coincidental .

CONCLUSION: LAW , STIGMA , EQUALITY, AN D CHOIC E Amid ongoin g inequalitie s i n bot h familie s an d work , la w take s equality a s it s goa l bu t utterl y fail s t o provid e th e structure s t o insure equalit y o r t o suppor t dependen t childre n an d thos e wh o car e for them . Whe n a marriag e dissolves , famil y la w revive s th e myt h of equalit y o f opportunit y i n wor k an d connect s i t t o th e famil y la w goals o f gende r neutrality , gende r equality , an d self-sufficiency . La w no longe r permit s th e dependenc y o f women an d ignore s th e depen dency o f children . Bu t divorc e expose s th e hidde n constructio n o f impoverished singl e parentin g withi n th e marita l family , th e conse quence o f th e combine d equalit y regime s o f famil y an d wor k law . Family la w equalit y justifie s conceptualizin g employmen t pattern s and famil y responsibilitie s a s private. Employmen t la w equalit y jus tifies conceivin g o f workforc e position s an d incom e a s matter s o f choice. Both famil y an d employmen t la w equalit y rhetori c suppor t a punitive welfar e policy . The la w ignore s muc h o f th e contex t o f inequalit y a s wel l a s th e consequences o f lega l structures . Th e la w i s a n activ e creato r o f stigma i n thi s sense , a s muc h s o a s i n it s rol e i n structurin g th e postdivorce family . A s is clear fro m equalit y analysis , the law ignore s unequal gende r role s an d th e perpetuatio n o f a highl y gendere d work-family structure . Th e la w lack s a rea l concep t o f ungendere d or share d parenting . I t refuse s t o conside r structura l chang e i n th e

77 / Divorced Single Parents workplace an d lack s flexibl e notion s o f wor k an d famil y combina tions. The la w relies o n individua l responsibilit y an d self-sufficiency , despite th e practica l impossibilit y o f self - o r familia l sufficienc y o n the sol e earning s o f man y jobs . La w als o perpetuate s th e concep t o f the sol e economi c provider , eve n thoug h mos t familie s mus t rel y o n two incomes . Th e la w continue s t o pul l mor e adult s ou t o f th e family an d into the labor market , supporte d b y equalit y rhetori c tha t expects adult s t o both wor k an d parent , bu t provide s littl e suppor t t o insure tha t childre n ar e nurtured . In addition , th e la w ignore s dependency . Previou s lega l model s o f family presume d dependency ; th e curren t equalit y mode l rest s o n a presumption o f independence. 8 We ignore dependenc y create d withi n marriage b y wallin g i t of f a s private . I n th e welfar e structure , w e ignore bot h th e car e o f dependen t childre n an d women' s economi c dependence b y insistin g tha t poo r wome n wor k outsid e th e hom e without providin g adequat e childcar e an d failin g t o insur e the m job s that provid e sufficien t economi c suppor t fo r th e family . Finally , b y ignoring gende r role s an d dependency , i t i s eas y fo r la w t o under value o r disregar d entirel y unwage d work . The rhetori c o f th e la w i s tha t yo u exercis e you r libert y an d freedom t o make choices . Choices ar e equal, i n famil y an d work, tha t is, the y ar e equall y available . Onc e yo u mak e you r choices , wher e opportunities ar e equal , i f you r choic e i s a "bad " one , it s you r fault , not a structura l problem . I f w e ar e responsibl e an d mak e goo d choices, w e succeed . I f not , societ y ha s justificatio n fo r stigma , a s a necessary negativ e punishmen t sinc e yo u wer e s o stupi d o r pervers e as to ignore positiv e incentives .

CHAPTER 4

Nonmarital SingleParent Families

Socially an d legall y ther e ha s bee n a shar p distinctio n betwee n children o f divorc e an d childre n bor n ou t o f wedlock , an d betwee n parents whos e marriag e ha s faile d an d parent s wh o hav e neve r married. Th e childre n an d parent s i n nonmarita l single-paren t fami lies ar e th e mos t heavil y stigmatize d single-paren t families . Whil e illegitimate childre n ma y n o longe r b e calle d bastards , th e condem nation o f thei r parent s ha s no t ended . The dange r i s that thi s distinctio n betwee n type s o f singl e parent s and thei r childre n wil l b e use d t o separat e an d isolat e nonmarita l single-parent familie s fro m divorce d singl e parents . Jus t a s widow s are honore d an d legall y supporte d distinc t fro m mos t singl e parents , divorced singl e parent s migh t separat e themselves , o r allo w them selves t o b e separated , a s deservin g singl e parent s entitle d t o publi c support. Dividin g singl e parent s betwee n divorce d an d nonmarita l single parent s als o mark s a colo r lin e betwee n group s o f singl e 78

79 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families parents. Nonmarita l singl e parentin g i s mor e typica l o f nonwhite s than o f whites . On th e othe r hand , th e sens e tha t nonmarita l single-paren t fami lies ca n b e attacke d withou t challeng e mean s tha t the y ca n b e use d as th e targe t t o denounc e al l singl e parents . T o the extent , then , tha t single parent s ar e viewe d a s a n undifferentiate d category , culturall y and legally , th e perceive d negativ e characteristic s an d mora l fault s o f single parent s wh o neve r marr y ar e ascribe d t o al l singl e parents . The law' s treatmen t o f nonmarita l singl e parent s incorporate s both o f thes e approaches . Historically , an d t o som e exten t currently , the la w ha s treate d thes e familie s distinctivel y b y attachin g grea t significance t o illegitimacy , explicitl y stigmatizin g th e childre n i n these familie s o n th e basi s o f tha t lega l status . Mor e recently , how ever, thos e statu s distinction s hav e bee n minimize d i n favo r o f a model which , i n theory , treat s childre n an d parenta l obligation s a s generally indistinguishabl e fo r nonmarita l a s well a s divorce d singl e parents. To th e exten t th e la w eliminate s th e statu s approac h an d treat s nonmarital childre n th e sam e a s marital children , nonmarita l single parent familie s ar e subjec t t o th e interconnecte d structure s o f famil y law, employmen t law , an d welfar e la w whic h shap e th e live s o f divorced single-paren t families . Th e cor e insigh t abou t thos e struc tures wa s tha t singl e parenthood i s constructed withi n marriage , a s a combination o f th e wor k an d famil y structur e plu s th e equalit y paradigms o f employmen t an d famil y law . The realitie s o f inequalit y both i n th e famil y an d th e marke t mutuall y reinforc e eac h other . Behind th e shiel d o f equalit y languag e the y construc t ver y differen t experiences o f parentin g fo r mother s an d fathers . Thos e difference s are eviden t a t divorce , an d construc t bot h th e differen t experienc e o f single parentin g fo r mother s an d fathers , a s wel l a s th e dominanc e of primary o r sol e parenting a s the parentin g model . The sam e dynami c operate s fo r unmarrie d singl e parents. Becaus e it is not hidde n withi n marriage , however , th e consequence s ar e eve n harsher. Th e sam e cor e problem s exis t o f wor k an d family , an d highly gender-differentiate d pattern s o f parenting . Thes e problem s are exacerbate d (or , mor e clearl y exposed ) becaus e ther e i s n o cush ion o f marriag e withi n whic h dependenc y wor k ca n b e done , albei t at significan t cos t i f th e marriag e ends . Rather , th e problem s o f balancing wor k an d family , gende r an d rac e discrimination , an d

8 0 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

limited economi c opportunitie s exis t fro m th e outset . The y ar e mad e more difficul t stil l becaus e the y ar e viewe d a s just consequence s fo r the immora l o r stupi d choic e o f bearing childre n outsid e o f marriage . Despite thes e similarities , i n othe r significan t respect s unmarrie d single parent s operat e withi n a quite differen t lega l framewor k fro m divorced singl e parents. The parameter s o f nonmarita l singl e parent hood ar e no t create d withi n marriage , i n relatio n t o anothe r paren t and i n combinatio n wit h wor k an d famil y roles . Rather , thei r singl e parenthood i s define d a t it s inceptio n b y thei r statu s a s unmarrie d parents. Functionall y the y ar e mos t simila r t o widows : th e absenc e of father s fo r economi c an d psychologica l suppor t t o th e mothe r o r as caretake r t o th e chil d o r children , mean s tha t th e fathe r ma y a s well b e dead . Bu t instea d o f bein g honore d an d supporte d a s ar e widows, nonmarita l mother s ar e mor e heavil y stigmatize d tha n an y other grou p o f singl e parents . The choice s fo r unmarrie d mother s ar e limited . A t th e poin t o f pregnancy o r childbirth , an d i n th e absenc e o f adoption , th e choice s for th e mother , i f sh e i s not self-supportin g o r canno t mee t al l child related expenses , ar e establishin g paternit y i n orde r t o ge t chil d support, o r seekin g welfare , whic h als o ma y requir e seekin g pater nity o r assignin g paternit y right s a s a preconditio n t o obtainin g benefits. Unmarrie d mother s fac e th e sam e discriminator y employ ment structur e a s divorce d singl e mothers , tha t is , th e generall y lower incom e tha t mos t wome n ear n a s compared t o men . For unmarrie d fathers , th e choice s ar e acknowledgin g paternit y or, a t present , abandonin g th e chil d with th e likelihoo d o f littl e lega l consequence fo r doin g so . As a practical matter , paternit y i s unlikel y to b e established , an d al l lega l obligation s flo w fro m paternity . Un like divorce , wher e th e lega l syste m ha s th e powe r t o impos e finan cial an d othe r obligation s a s a conditio n o r consequenc e o f dissolu tion o f th e marriage , wit h unmarrie d parent s th e la w treat s father s as i f the y d o no t exist , almos t a s i f th e chil d wa s th e produc t o f immaculate conception , unti l a lega l fathe r voluntaril y come s for ward o r i s established b y private , o r usually state , action . The single most critical statistic about nonmarital single-parent families is that paternity is established for only 30 percent of nonmarital children. Paternit y i s a critica l preconditio n t o severa l legal entitlements . Th e hig h rat e o f unestablishe d paternit y mean s that a disproportionat e numbe r o f nonmarita l childre n ar e denie d

81 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families minimal support . Fo r children , thi s mean s tha t the y ar e grante d equality wit h marita l childre n i n nam e only . Th e structur e fo r unwed parent s operate s unde r th e guis e o f gende r neutralit y an d purported equality . Th e purporte d equalit y her e i s tha t betwee n married an d unmarrie d parents , an d betwee n mother s an d fathers . The realities , however , ar e a s distan t fro m theor y her e a s ar e th e realities o f postdivorc e families , althoug h the y operat e i n a differen t fashion. The most commo n economi c pattern fo r nonmarita l singl e parent s is tha t th e mothe r generate s a lo w income , th e fathe r provide s n o economic o r othe r support , an d th e welfar e syste m provide s below poverty-line benefit s t o th e family . Compare d t o divorce d single parent families , th e nonmarital singl e parent i s more likel y to remai n unmarried, th e childre n ar e mor e likel y t o remai n withi n a single parent househol d fo r a lon g period , an d th e likelihoo d o f famil y poverty i s greater . Father s ar e les s likel y tha n divorce d father s t o provide suppor t an d unlikel y t o provid e an y nurturing . The lega l syste m make s i t easie r t o hav e a n abortio n o r plac e a child fo r adoptio n tha n t o paren t a s a singl e parent . I f a n unmarrie d mother decide s t o parent , th e lega l structur e paradoxicall y i n som e cases discourages marriag e where th e prospective spous e lacks signif icant employmen t opportunities , becaus e marriag e ma y disentitl e one t o eve n meage r AFD C benefits . Thi s resul t especiall y impact s women an d me n o f colo r wh o ar e disproportionatel y disadvantage d in th e wag e labo r market . I f a n unmarrie d fathe r decide s t o parent , the lega l structur e discourage s o r outrigh t prevent s parentin g out side of marriage .

THE CONTEXT : NONMARITA L SINGLE PARENT S General Characteristics The increas e i n nonmarita l familie s ove r th e pas t twent y year s ha s been striking . Accordin g t o a 198 9 report , 4. 7 millio n o r 3 0 percen t of childre n live d wit h a never-marrie d paren t (Salute r 1989). 1 Childbearing amon g never-marrie d wome n i s a t recor d levels . Th e rate o f nonmarita l childbearin g i s highe r fo r Black s tha n fo r whites ,

8 2 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

but increase s i n th e rat e o f nonmarita l childbearin g hav e bee n greater an d faste r fo r whit e women . To some extent , o f course , no t al l o f thos e counte d a s nonmarita l single-parent familie s i n fac t confor m t o tha t famil y form ; no t al l of these nonmarita l singl e parent s ar e parentin g alone . Som e unmar ried couples , no t cohabitating , marr y soo n afte r th e birt h o f thei r children, o r will eventually marr y A n estimate d 9 0 percent o f peopl e will marr y durin g thei r lifetime , an d o f thos e wh o divorce , abou t 7 0 percent wil l remarr y (Salute r 1989 , 11) . Othe r unmarrie d parent s are cohabitin g heterosexua l couples , althoug h the y ar e counte d a s single parents . Three i n te n cohabitin g couple s hav e childre n i n thei r household (8) . Abou t 6 0 percen t o f cohabitin g couple s eventuall y marry. When cohabitant s d o not marry , th e averag e duratio n o f thei r relationship i s eightee n month s (9) . Finally , thos e ga y an d lesbia n couples prohibite d fro m marryin g bu t counte d a s unmarrie d singl e parents despit e long-ter m committe d relationships , ar e hidde n within th e coun t o f nonmarita l singl e parents . Although single-paren t familie s i n genera l ten d t o b e poor , non marital familie s ar e th e single-paren t grou p mos t likel y t o b e poo r and receivin g publi c support . Th e difference s i n incom e betwee n nonmarital familie s an d divorce d familie s ar e significant . I n 1990 , median famil y incom e fo r never-marrie d mother s wit h childre n un der th e ag e of eighteen wa s $8,337, compared t o $15,762 fo r divorce d mothers wit h childre n unde r th e ag e o f eightee n (Bersharo v 1992) . Black mothers ' media n incom e i n 199 0 wa s 3 2 percen t les s tha n white mothers ' income ; divorce d Blac k mother s earne d 2 0 percen t less tha n divorce d whit e mothers . Thes e economi c circumstance s translate int o highe r welfar e usage . Jus t ove r three-quarter s o f un married adolescen t mother s wer e likel y t o b e o n welfar e withi n fiv e years o f th e birt h o f thei r firs t child . Fort y percen t o f nonmarita l mothers receiv e welfar e fo r te n year s o r more , compare d t o 1 4 percent o f divorce d mother s (Bersharo v 1992) . Welfar e usag e i s connected t o unmarrie d mothers ' muc h lowe r rat e o f obtainin g chil d support an d th e paltr y amoun t receive d i f suppor t i s ordered : onl y 20 percen t receiv e chil d support , an d th e annua l paymen t i s abou t half o f th e averag e receive d b y divorce d mothers . Al l o f thi s reflect s a differenc e i n th e dynami c o f poverty , bu t arguabl y i t i s onl y a more sever e versio n o f th e problem s o f divorce d singl e parent s i n general.

83 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families Severe economi c constraint s als o affec t th e configuratio n o f th e household. Currentl y 2 1 percen t o f singl e parent s liv e i n extende d families, versu s 2 percent fo r two-paren t families . Nonmarita l singl e parents ar e mor e likel y t o liv e i n extende d familie s tha n divorce d single parents . Three-quarters o f singl e parent s wh o liv e in extende d families liv e wit h relatives , usuall y parents , th e remainde r wit h boyfriends o r othe r nonrelatives . I f give n th e choice , mos t familie s would op t t o creat e thei r ow n househol d o f paren t an d childre n (Vogejda 1992) . Never-married mother s ar e o n averag e te n year s younge r tha n divorced mothers . Two-third s o f thes e mother s ar e betwee n fiftee n and twenty-fou r year s old . Lac k o f educatio n als o characterize s thi s group (Besharo v 1992) . Thirty-nine percen t o f never-marrie d moth ers d o no t hav e a hig h schoo l education . Finally , onl y hal f o f thes e mothers ar e in th e labo r forc e (Lin o 1994) . Teenagers Teenagers are the focu s fo r a great dea l of the concern abou t nonmar ital singl e parent s (Rhod e 1993) . Twent y percen t o f femal e adoles cents bea r a child . Teenag e parent s ar e nearl y evenl y spli t betwee n marital an d nonmarita l families . A t th e birt h o f thei r children , 4 2 percent o f teenag e mother s ar e marrie d t o th e father , an d a n addi tional 2 0 t o 2 4 percen t marr y th e fathe r withi n a yea r o f givin g birth. Onl y abou t 5 percent o f teenag e mother s plac e their babie s fo r adoption. Approximatel y two-third s o f al l birth s b y teenag e wome n are t o eighteen - an d nineteen-year-olds , whil e onl y 2 percent ar e t o teenagers younge r tha n fifteen . Teenagers generall y d o no t choos e t o becom e pregnant , althoug h once pregnan t the y ma y choos e t o becom e mothers . O f al l teenag e mothers, 7 9 percent o f youn g Blac k women an d 8 4 percent o f youn g white wome n di d no t inten d t o become pregnan t (Thoma s 1994 , 8 3 84). Earl y motherhoo d ha s seriou s negativ e consequence s fo r youn g women. I t i s especiall y likel y t o affec t thei r educationa l level , whic h directly affect s thei r presen t an d futur e economi c status . Children i n household s heade d b y teenag e singl e parent s ar e likely t o b e poor . Fou r ou t o f ever y fiv e childre n wit h teenag e mothers ar e poor . Thi s compare s t o a povert y rat e o f 2 0 percen t fo r all children, alread y a n alarmingl y hig h figure .

8 4 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

Women wh o becom e teenag e singl e parent s ar e mor e likel y t o b e women o f color . Thi s i s connecte d t o a higher rat e o f teenag e sexua l activity, les s us e o f contraceptio n an d abortion , an d a lowe r rat e o f marriage (Rhod e 1993) . By ag e eighteen , 7 percent o f whit e women , 14 percent o f Hispani c women , an d 2 6 percent o f Blac k women hav e given birth , despit e a 40 percen t abortio n rat e fo r al l pregnancie s t o women fiftee n t o ninetee n year s o f age . Teenage motherhoo d i s als o more commo n amon g wome n fro m a lo w socioeconomi c status , with lo w educationa l achievement , poo r employmen t prospects , an d relatively hig h rate s o f welfare dependence . What i s particularly importan t t o remembe r abou t teenag e singl e parents i s tha t mos t o f the m ar e nearl y i n thei r twentie s an d s o might bes t b e though t o f a s youn g mother s rathe r tha n a s teenag e mothers; tha t the y constitut e onl y a smal l proportio n o f th e single parent population ; an d tha t th e mos t obviou s solutio n fo r thei r economic problems i s education t o insur e bette r employmen t oppor tunities an d self-sufficiency . Thei r disadvantage s ar e correctable ; they ca n b e temporar y instea d o f permanent . Separatin g th e politic s surrounding preventio n o f tee n pregnanc y fro m suppor t o f tee n parents an d thei r childre n account s fo r th e persisten t difficult y i n following tha t course . Black Families In analyzin g th e situatio n o f unwe d mothers , i n additio n t o payin g attention t o teenager s i t i s critica l t o pa y attentio n t o race . Withi n the Africa n America n community , wher e single-paren t familie s ar e the dominan t famil y form , nonmarita l familie s ar e th e mos t com mon typ e o f single-paren t family. 2 I n 1993 , nearl y 6 0 percen t o f Black children reside d with a never-married mother , mor e tha n thre e times th e percentag e fo r whit e children . Sinc e 1970 , th e proportio n of Black children livin g with onl y on e paren t ha s doubled , increasin g from one-thir d t o two-thirds . Th e proportio n o f single-paren t fami lies amon g white s ros e eve n mor e quickl y durin g th e sam e tim e period, 14 1 percent, a s compared t o a n 8 2 percent increas e fo r Black s (although th e increas e amon g Black s wa s fro m a highe r initia l bas e figure). The increas e i n th e numbe r o f nonmarita l birth s amon g Blac k women i s connecte d t o a n increas e i n th e ag e a t whic h Blac k wome n

85 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families marry an d th e shorte r tim e perio d the y remai n married , no t t o overall increase s i n th e birt h rat e amon g Blac k women (Taylo r 1990 , 1001). Amon g Black s i n general , especiall y amon g youn g Blacks , marriage rate s ar e declining , althoug h sexua l activit y i s hig h amon g teenagers (Taylo r e t al . 1990, 1003) . The dominanc e o f single-paren t familie s heade d b y wome n i s connected t o th e labo r forc e positio n o f Blac k wome n compare d t o that o f Blac k men . Thirty-fou r percen t o f Blac k mother s wor k full time, bu t th e majority , nearl y 6 0 percent , ar e unemploye d o r no t i n the labor forc e (Salute r 1989) . In Marc h 1993 , there were mor e Blac k women tha n Blac k me n i n th e civilia n labo r forc e (Bennet t 1995) . Occupationally a higher proportio n o f Blac k women tha n Blac k me n are employe d i n job s likel y t o brin g i n highe r incomes , tha t is , managerial an d professiona l specialt y jobs . Th e wag e gende r ga p between Blac k wome n an d Blac k me n i s narrowe r tha n betwee n white wome n an d whit e men , wit h Blac k wome n earnin g abou t 75 percent o f th e incom e o f Blac k men . Thi s i s a reflectio n no t o f les s gender discrimination , bu t o f th e pervasivenes s o f rac e discrimina tion. Th e occupationa l patter n o f Blac k me n i s strikingl y differen t from tha t o f whit e men , i n term s o f th e proportio n o f Blac k me n in th e workforce , thei r unemploymen t rate , an d thei r occupationa l distribution. No t surprisingly , th e pe r capit a incom e o f th e Blac k population i s only 59 percent o f tha t o f th e whit e population . About hal f o f al l Blac k familie s maintaine d b y wome n an d abou t 30 percent maintaine d b y me n wer e poor i n 1993 . For female-heade d families wit h childre n unde r ag e six , media n incom e wa s $8,690 ; for household s wit h childre n age d si x t o seventeen , $12,460 . Th e corresponding figure s fo r whit e wome n wer e almos t double , $11,98 0 and $21,32 0 (Bennet t 1995) . Since child suppor t i s tied t o the father' s incom e level , rather tha n a livin g standard , th e averag e chil d suppor t awarde d t o a Blac k mother i s hal f tha t receive d b y whit e mothers , reflectin g th e disad vantaged economi c statu s o f Blac k men . Accordin g t o a 198 7 report , only 3 6 percen t o f th e eligibl e Blac k mother s ha d chil d suppor t orders; o f those , 7 3 percen t receive d payments . Whit e wome n ha d an awar d rat e o f 6 9 percent , bu t th e degre e o f actua l paymen t o f support wa s simila r t o tha t o f Blac k mothers . The poverty of Black single-parent families is not dramatically different from the presence of poverty in two-parent Black families.

8 6 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

Divorced Blac k wome n mor e ofte n tha n whit e wome n com e fro m poor households ; th e chang e i n famil y structur e therefor e ha s littl e impact o n povert y i n th e househol d (Claud e 1986 , 21). 3 Thi s i s caused i n larg e par t b y th e labo r marke t positio n o f Blac k men , which i s substantiall y differen t fro m tha t o f whit e men . Blac k mal e participation i n th e workforc e ha s decline d substantiall y sinc e th e 1970s, an d investment s i n educatio n an d jo b experienc e ar e no t rewarded a s highly a s for whit e male s (22) . In th e Blac k community , the feminizatio n o f povert y i s matched b y masculin e povert y Ther e is a widespread proble m o f economi c marginalization o f both wome n and me n (Brewe r 1988 , 334) . Ove r hal f o f Blac k female-heade d families ar e i n poverty , a s compare d t o 1 5 percen t o f male-heade d families (Taylo r e t al . 1990, 1005). The stron g stigm a attache d t o Blac k singl e mother s connect s t o a long history o f devaluin g Blac k families a s well a s Black motherhoo d (Roberts, D . 1991 , 1994 ; Austi n 1989) . Blac k feminis t scholar s i n particular hav e been sensitiv e t o this harsh stigma. 4 Dorothy Robert s gives thre e examples : th e historica l remova l o f childre n fro m thei r mothers durin g slavery ; th e disproportionat e remova l o f Blac k chil dren fro m thei r familie s fo r abus e an d neglect ; an d th e sterilizatio n abuse of Black women. Th e treatment o f Black single mothers shoul d be adde d t o th e list . Th e negativ e popula r image s includ e sexua l licentiousness, careles s an d incompeten t mothering , dominatin g ma triarchs, an d laz y welfar e mother s wh o refus e t o wor k an d "breed " babies i n orde r t o increase th e siz e of thei r benefi t chec k (Roberts , D. 1991, 1437) . A s Robert s point s out , Blac k wome n hav e deviate d from traditiona l femal e role s an d fo r tha t deviatio n the y hav e bee n strongly condemned . Whe n a woma n defie s bot h rac e an d gende r proscriptions, sh e is blamed fo r bein g too strong . He r strengt h i s no t the roc k o f he r family , bu t rathe r i s viewed a s th e dangerou s hazar d on whic h th e famil y i s destroyed . Thi s als o play s int o th e devalua tion o f Blac k childre n a s inferio r du e t o th e har m inflicte d b y matri archy, justifyin g program s whic h punis h an d dete r childbearin g b y incompetent Blac k mothers (Robert s 1994 , 878) . It i s interestin g t o contras t th e valu e attache d t o Blac k women' s reproductive capacit y durin g slaver y wit h th e effor t toda y t o cu t of f the reproductio n o f Blac k childre n wh o ar e viewe d a s a n economi c drag o n societ y (Burnha m 1987 , 198-99 ; Harris , C . 1993) . Th e ulti mate disciplin e fo r slav e wome n wa s th e threa t o f separation , fro m

8y I Nonmarital Single-Parent Families husbands an d childre n (Burnha m 1987 , 201-2). The stubbor n persis tence o f famil y outsid e th e la w i s a testamen t t o resistanc e an d th e strength o f intimat e bonds . Th e la w viewe d famil y a s raciall y lim ited, a difference expresse d i n Ji m Cro w an d perpetuate d beyon d Ji m Crow i n th e treatmen t o f differen t famil y form s toda y (225) . Cheryl Harri s argue s tha t th e la w values whiteness , an d see s rac e as a for m o f valuabl e propert y whic h confer s th e righ t t o exclude . The sam e righ t t o exclud e i s arguabl y a t stak e i n contro l ove r lega l definitions o f famil y (Harris , C . 1993). She also argues tha t th e valu e of whiteness , expressl y addresse d i n th e dismantlin g o f segregation , has bee n perpetuate d throug h th e refusa l t o dea l wit h th e conse quences o f segregation , thu s incorporatin g racia l privileg e withi n supposed neutra l principle s (Harris , C . 1993). 5 Sh e cite s a s evidenc e of th e valu e o f whitenes s a surve y b y Andre w Hacke r wher e whit e students wer e aske d t o se t th e amoun t the y woul d see k i f the y wer e changed fro m whit e t o black . Th e answer , o n average , wa s $5 0 million, a n implici t recognitio n o f th e value , i n term s o f relativ e advantage, o f whiteness . Single parent s hav e bee n a significan t famil y for m fo r ove r a century i n th e Africa n America n community . Ther e i s a histor y o f strong mother s wh o hav e raise d childre n i n thei r ow n househol d o r as par t o f a n extende d household , a s wel l a s a history o f continuin g oppression o f Blac k father s b y white s (Jone s 1985) . Mother s hav e parented successfull y despit e th e dominan t culture' s overwhelm ingly negativ e view s o f thei r motherin g an d thei r families . The y have bee n enable d an d empowere d b y thei r communitie s an d thei r culture, an d tha t mode l provide s extraordinar y insigh t an d lesson s for polic y makin g fo r al l single-paren t families . Th e strength s o f some single-paren t familie s shoul d no t detrac t fro m th e rea l prob lems face d b y man y Blac k mothers , an d w e mus t b e carefu l no t t o recreate th e stereotyp e o f th e invincibl e matriarch . Whethe r thos e strengths ca n b e replicate d i n othe r cultura l context s i s als o un known. Bu t neithe r shoul d w e continu e t o ignor e pattern s o f succes s despite a very hostil e socia l structure . We migh t thin k abou t single-paren t familie s differentl y wer e w e thinking abou t the m a s th e dominan t famil y form , an d nonmarita l single parent s a s th e dominan t for m o f singl e parenting . Imagin e i f we wer e t o accor d t o th e nonmarita l single-paren t famil y th e lega l support give n t o th e marrie d traditiona l nuclea r family . Befor e envi -

8 8 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

sioning that , i t i s importan t t o explor e th e existin g lega l structure . The lega l structur e fo r nonmarita l singl e parent s t o som e exten t overlaps tha t facin g divorce d singl e parents , an d therefor e share s th e inadequacies o f tha t lega l framework . Bu t becaus e establishmen t o f paternity trigger s th e availabilit y o f tha t framework , paternit y la w has critica l importanc e fo r nonmarita l singl e parents . Th e mor e se vere economi c crisi s o f nonmarita l singl e parent s als o make s the m more dependen t o n th e welfar e structure , an d therefor e tha t struc ture require s reexamination .

NONMARITAL FAMILIE S AN D THE LAW The la w want s nonmarita l familie s t o fail. 6 Historically , tha t wa s explicit. Th e olde r mode l wa s tha t nonmarita l childre n ha d n o lega l connections, rights , o r entitlement s fro m thei r fathe r unles s legiti mated; th e chil d wa s legall y solel y th e mother' s child , a clearl y disadvantaged statu s i n a n explicitl y patriarcha l structure ; an d th e child was shame d fo r th e act s of th e parents , labele d a bastard fo r lif e even i f later legitimated . Th e contemporar y mode l o f the nonmarita l family i s base d o n constitutiona l condemnatio n o f differentiatio n between marita l an d nonmarita l children , an d chil d suppor t statute s requiring suppor t o f childre n regardles s o f th e parents ' marita l sta tus. I t i s a mode l o f parenta l gende r equalit y whic h view s mother s and father s a s substantiall y equa l i n right s an d responsibilities . But the olde r model persists. The equality model is a sham: gende r neutrality i s undercut b y th e difficult y o f identifyin g father s an d th e perpetuation o f mothers ' povert y b y inadequat e chil d suppor t an d welfare structures . S o th e curren t framewor k i s no t a mode l o f equality, bu t rathe r o f a stigmatize d mother-chil d family , justifyin g the harshes t economi c consequences . Fathe r absenc e i s no t decrie d because fathe r presenc e i s no t expected . Illegitimac y ma y b e a mor e invisible badge , bu t th e realitie s o f differentia l treatmen t betwee n marital an d nonmarita l childre n maintai n th e stam p o f inferiority . The strikin g similarit y i n th e lega l an d socia l scienc e discours e about th e "problem " wit h bot h never-marrie d an d divorce d single parent families , a s Professor Marth a Finema n ha s pointe d out , i s th e identification o f th e proble m a s th e absenc e o f a ma n i n th e family .

89 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families The focu s o f lega l reforms , sh e argues , ha s bee n t o reimpos e th e patriarchal family , b y custodia l reform s i n divorc e an d b y requirin g establishment o f paternit y fo r never-marrie d wome n t o qualif y fo r welfare (Finema n 1991b , 281 ; Fineman 1991a , 1983) . For never-marrie d mothers , however , neithe r i n theor y no r i n reality i s ther e muc h o f a n effor t t o trul y brin g th e fathe r in . Paternity i s indeed the critica l legal structure , because i t theoreticall y entitles childre n t o equivalen t suppor t t o childre n conceive d withi n marriage. Bu t paternit y i s designe d t o protec t father s agains t moth ers, t o provid e onl y limited , economi c right s fo r children , withou t a vision o f paterna l caretaking . Legitimation The curren t lega l an d socia l polic y structur e replicate s th e histor y o f blatant stigm a attache d t o illegitimat e childre n an d thei r parents . Ancient custo m dictate d tha t a n unwe d pregnan t woma n b e stone d to death , killin g he r unbor n chil d a s well . I n Roma n society , an d a t early commo n law , wome n wer e allowe d t o giv e birth , bu t th e children wer e marke d fo r lif e a s bein g outsid e o f recognize d kinshi p bonds. Childre n bor n ou t o f wedloc k wer e viewe d a s bein g childre n of n o one : filiu s nullius , th e so n o f n o one , o r filiu s populi , th e so n of th e people . Daughter s wer e irrelevant , sinc e the y wer e presume d eventually t o tak e th e nam e o f thei r husband . Withi n thi s expressl y patriarchal system , i t wa s th e nam e o f th e fathe r whic h wa s critical , since th e father' s nam e determine d inheritanc e rights . Legitimatio n was a purel y paterna l right . Th e mothe r coul d no t legitimat e he r child o r eve n giv e th e chil d he r name . Instead , th e child' s nam e wa s gained b y th e child' s reputatio n i n th e community . Th e chil d ha d n o legal mothe r o r father , an d n o lega l rights . In th e sixteent h century , Englis h commo n la w wa s modifie d t o add a crimina l caus e o f actio n t o permi t punishmen t o f th e mothe r and fathe r o f a n out-of-wedloc k child , an d eithe r o r bot h parent s could b e require d t o suppor t th e child . I n th e nineteent h century , English an d America n la w shifte d t o decriminaliz e th e statu s o f unwed mother s an d t o requir e the m t o suppor t thei r children . Inter estingly, Englis h la w initiall y forbad e mother s fro m suin g putativ e fathers fo r support . Th e la w wa s eventuall y amende d t o permi t mothers t o see k support .

9 0 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

Mother an d child , therefore , wer e mad e th e lega l famil y unit , b y granting lega l custod y o f th e chil d t o th e mother , an d imposin g a n obligation o f car e fo r th e child . Thi s materna l preferenc e was , ac cording t o on e lega l historian , base d o n th e abilit y t o identif y th e mother, an d th e presumption , lik e th e tende r year s presumption , that a mothe r woul d b e a bette r parent . I t wa s complete d symboli cally wit h th e mother' s righ t t o us e he r surnam e t o nam e th e child . Under thi s regime , th e putativ e fathe r wa s no t par t o f th e lega l picture whatsoever . Courts continu e t o labe l childre n bor n ou t o f wedloc k a s illegiti mate (Stie r 1992) . Althoug h illegitimat e childre n ar e n o longe r dis advantaged t o th e exten t historicall y permitted , the y continu e t o have les s right s tha n legitimat e children , an d th e ver y persistenc e o f the status , wit h it s pejorativ e connotation , expresse s stron g stigm a toward thes e children . Tha t bia s i s apparen t i n adoption , wher e transferring a chil d fro m a disfavore d singl e mothe r t o a favore d two-parent marita l famil y i s th e paradigm . Becaus e th e proces s o f adoption involve s th e reissuanc e o f th e birt h certificate , removin g the name(s ) o f th e birthparent(s ) an d insertin g th e name s o f th e adoptive parents , thi s permit s th e stigm a o f illegitimac y literall y t o be erased . Similarly , th e negativ e connotatio n o f "singl e parent " i s apparent i n paternit y determinations , wher e th e lega l proces s pre sumes th e stereotyp e o f th e unwilling , irresponsibl e unwe d father . The ver y concep t an d meanin g o f legitimac y embod y a blatan t example o f stigm a intertwine d wit h gende r hierarchy . Legitimac y i s father-controlled an d father-related . Statu s i s throug h th e father , epitomized b y th e father' s gif t o f hi s nam e t o hi s children . Als o deeply embedde d i n thi s concep t i s th e vie w o f childre n a s property , property whic h ca n b e " claimed" o r ignored . Children' s right s t o support ar e limited t o the natur e o f their legall y recognize d relation ship t o thei r father , a relationship define d purel y biologically . Legitimation ha s a differen t impac t dependin g upo n whethe r th e father i s marrie d o r unmarried , a t leas t wit h respec t t o inheritance . Legitimation o f a child b y a married father , wher e th e chil d i s born e by a woman no t marrie d t o the father , entitle s th e chil d to equivalen t inheritance right s t o othe r children , bu t th e chil d doe s no t hav e an y status wit h respec t t o propert y o f th e wif e o f he r father . Give n th e irrelevance o f inherite d propert y t o th e suppor t o f mos t childre n i n single-parent families , th e focu s o f legitimation o n acces s to propert y

91 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families at deat h i s largel y meaningles s (o r perhap s onl y interestin g fo r it s symbolic statement) . The refor m o f thi s structur e ha s bee n quit e recent . Unde r th e guise o f gende r neutralit y an d eliminatio n o f histori c discriminatio n against illegitimat e children , i n som e state s th e forma l lega l struc ture ha s eliminate d distinction s betwee n marita l an d nonmarita l children, betwee n father s an d mothers , an d betwee n marrie d an d unmarried parents . Th e refor m move s towar d treatin g nonmarita l children th e sam e a s divorce d childre n an d makin g al l singl e parent s fit th e divorc e model . Theoretically, thi s represent s a radica l shif t i n statu s an d treat ment o f thes e children . A s a practical matter , however , th e enormou s gulf betwee n th e treatmen t o f marita l an d nonmarita l childre n per sists. Partl y thi s ma y b e becaus e th e presumption s o f similarit y ar e insupportable. Th e structur e o f nonmarita l relationship s i s quit e different fro m tha t o f divorce , an d mos t notabl y th e rat e o f mal e rejection o f responsibilit y fo r thei r childre n i s strikingl y hig h fo r nonmarital parents . Second , th e hurdle s t o acknowledgin g paternit y and therefor e bein g a n economi c parent ar e quite high . Third, expec tations o f mor e tha n economi c parenthoo d ar e quit e low . Th e pre sumption o f mothe r custod y an d fathe r absenc e i s more explicit . The patter n o f deepe r deprivatio n i s repeate d wit h chil d support . While th e overal l pictur e fo r chil d suppor t i s abysmal , i t i s eve n worse fo r wome n wit h nonmarita l children . I n 1989 , wome n wh o had bee n previousl y marrie d wer e three times mor e likel y t o hav e a support orde r tha n wome n wh o had never married , 7 2 percent versu s 24 percent (Burea u o f th e Censu s 1992) . The amoun t o f th e averag e award i s low, but i t i s even lowe r fo r nonmarita l women . I n 198 9 th e average annua l suppor t paymen t wa s just unde r $3,000 ; for nonmar ital mothers , i t was $1,88 8 (Burea u o f Censu s 1992) . One fina l perhap s obviou s differenc e betwee n non-marita l an d divorced singl e parent s i s that ther e i s no property division , howeve r meager, tha t migh t provid e eve n short-ter m financia l suppor t fo r th e caregiving parent . Th e identifie d problem s o f propert y divisio n a t divorce, the unfairnes s an d inadequac y o f a one-time financia l settle ment an d minima l ongoin g support , ar e magnifie d fo r nonmarita l families. Obviously , an y effor t t o replicat e th e divorce d single-paren t family ca n onl y achiev e wha t th e limit s o f th e divorc e framewor k permit, whic h I hav e demonstrate d i s itsel f inadequat e fo r th e vas t

9 2 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

majority o f singl e parents . Parit y o r equalit y wit h marita l familie s i s then onl y a n equa l opportunit y t o b e a littl e les s poor , bu t n o guarantee o f rea l support . Finally , with respec t t o custod y an d visita tion, anecdota l evidenc e suggest s a n eve n mor e pronounce d extrem e of th e divorc e patter n o f paterna l noninvolvement . Paternity Paternity la w i s a glaring exampl e o f a place wher e th e la w discour ages fathering , perpetuate s second-clas s statu s fo r nonmarita l chil dren, an d devalue s mothers . Th e rat e o f paternit y establishmen t fo r nonmarital childre n ha s remaine d stead y a t approximatel y 3 0 per cent o f al l nonmarita l birth s (Wattenber g 1993 , 214) . Th e rate s b y state rang e fro m a hig h o f 6 7 percen t i n Michiga n t o a lo w o f 1 4 percent i n Louisian a an d 2 0 percent i n Ne w Yor k (Wattenber g 1993 , 215). Over two-thirds of nonmarital children have no legally recognized father. Tha t i s a stunnin g figure . Fo r thos e children , the y ar e formally acknowledge d t o hav e onl y on e paren t wh o provide s al l psychological, social , and economi c support . The majorit y o f unwe d mother s mus t operat e bot h legall y an d socially withou t a fathe r i n th e picture . Fo r thes e single-paren t families, th e analog y t o widow s seem s ver y clear . I t i s particularl y the cas e i f on e define s th e famil y fro m th e perspectiv e o f th e chil d or children , an d thei r needs . Although th e protectio n o f fathers ' right s ha s increased , ther e ha s been a n amazin g continuatio n o f th e commo n la w traditio n tha t a n unmarried putativ e fathe r owe s n o lega l dut y t o hi s chil d an d i n effect i s a "stranger " t o th e child . Th e fathers ' right s cases , fo r example, al l focus o n th e natur e o f th e father' s right s whe n th e chil d is bor n ou t o f wedlock , particularl y i n case s o f adoption . The y re quire tha t th e fathe r seiz e th e opportunit y o f parentin g afforde d b y the biologica l tie , i n orde r t o clai m right s whic h ma y conflic t wit h those o f th e mothe r o r o f othe r thir d parties . Thes e case s se e th e biological connectio n a s presentin g a n opportunity , on e tha t i s pre sumed t o b e present . Th e biologica l connectio n entitle s th e fathe r t o develop a parent-chil d relationship , regardles s o f hi s relationshi p t o the mother . Thi s case la w als o see s th e father' s decisio n a s a choice , not a s a responsibility . A t leas t on e schola r ha s suggeste d tha t th e father's opportunit y i s reall y see n i n term s o f th e mother , no t i n

93 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families terms o f th e child ; th e opportunit y i s t o pursu e marriag e o r a committed relationshi p wit h th e mother , thereb y replicatin g th e traditional two-paren t famil y (Dolgi n 1994) . The opportunit y als o i s defined i n relatio n t o other men : the "biologica l connectio n . . . offer s the natura l fathe r a n opportunit y tha t n o othe r mal e possesses " (Lehr v. Robinson 1983 , 262). Unmarried putativ e father s ar e treate d differentl y fro m marrie d putative fathers . Marrie d father s ar e presume d t o b e th e fathe r o f children bor n t o thei r wive s durin g marriage , an d th e U.S . Suprem e Court ha s uphel d tha t presumptio n b y focusin g o n th e marita l rela tionship, no t o n th e child' s perspectiv e no r th e mother' s perspective . In Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989), a single fathe r sough t t o maintai n his relationshi p wit h hi s biologica l child , bor n a s th e resul t o f a lov e affair wit h a marrie d woman . Althoug h cas t withi n th e framewor k of evidentiar y rule s an d presumptions , th e cas e seeme d t o res t o n seeing th e issu e a s th e oppositio n betwee n th e singl e fathe r an d th e marriage, o r th e threa t t o th e marriag e b y a n ongoin g relationshi p with th e chil d b y th e biologica l father . Th e stigmatize d singl e father , further morall y reprehensibl e becaus e o f hi s interferenc e wit h th e marital relationship , ha d n o chanc e t o recas t hi s reques t a s on e t o expand an d enric h th e relationship s o f th e chil d agains t thi s vie w o f his presenc e a s a detrimen t t o th e marriage , an d therefor e t o th e

child.

The proces s o f establishin g paternit y i s no t inherentl y difficult , given geneti c testing which ca n exclud e a man no t th e fathe r i n mor e than 9 9 percen t o f cases , fo r a cos t rangin g fro m a lo w o f $15 0 t o a high o f $500-$6oo. 7 Mor e accurat e DN A testin g range s fro m $55 0 to $870 . I f a depositio n i s required , i t ca n usuall y b e complete d fo r $200; i f a n exper t i s neede d t o testif y a t trial , th e cos t i s usuall y $1,200 pe r da y plu s expenses. 8 Paternity ca n b e establishe d voluntaril y o r involuntarily . Th e father ca n acknowledg e paternit y i n mos t state s b y a statement file d under oat h wit h th e cour t o r th e vita l statistic s bureau . A fathe r claiming paternit y base d o n a biologica l connectio n i s a "putativ e father." Unde r th e unifor m paternit y act , an d man y stat e laws , a n unmarried fathe r ma y als o becom e a "presumed " fathe r b y "receiv ing th e chil d int o hi s hom e an d hol d [ing] ou t th e chil d a s his natura l child" (Unifor m Parentag e Ac t 1973) . Paternity establishmen t i s time-consumin g an d th e rat e o f estab -

9 4 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

lishment remain s stubbornl y low . On e stud y identifie d th e quasi criminal o r crimina l natur e o f som e proceedings , triggerin g height ened procedura l an d evidentiar y standard s whic h slo w th e proces s (Williams an d William s 1989). 9 I n som e jurisdictions, wher e severa l hearings ma y preced e a jury trial , it may tak e a s long as nine month s for eac h o f u p t o fou r hearings , an d anothe r yea r befor e th e cas e goes t o tria l (3) . Eve n wit h respec t t o voluntar y acknowledgement , many existin g procedure s ar e cumbersom e an d invasive . The disincentive s t o establishin g paternit y li e bot h wit h thes e structural barrier s an d limite d commitmen t o f publi c funds . Th e state bring s mos t paternit y actions , an d th e stat e contract s fo r mos t paternity testing . Eve n wit h a lega l structur e whic h facilitate s an d streamlines th e establishmen t o f paternity , i f publi c resource s ar e not committe d t o thi s goal , the n th e rat e wil l remai n low . On e sampling o f the state s i n th e lat e 1980 s indicated a range o f paternit y establishment fro m unde r 2 percen t t o 5 0 percen t (William s an d Williams 1989) . Anyone othe r tha n th e chil d mus t fil e a paternit y actio n withi n three year s o f th e birt h o f th e child , unde r th e unifor m act ; the chil d has a longe r statut e o f limitation s whic h expire s thre e year s afte r the chil d reache s majority . Tha t timin g i s interesting : i t limit s th e number o f claim s significantly . Th e likelihoo d tha t a chil d woul d have th e knowledg e o r resource s t o pursu e a clai m seem s ver y low , while a t th e sam e tim e thi s greatl y limit s th e action s whic h ca n b e taken o n their behal f b y adults. It suggests tha t th e mother i s allowed a choic e o f whethe r t o pursu e paternity . Tha t woul d b e consisten t with th e statutor y framewor k o f som e state s whic h require s th e mother's consen t t o allo w th e actio n t o g o forward . Tha t framewor k appears t o b e commo n i n th e majorit y o f jurisdictions, whic h d o no t follow th e Unifor m Parentag e Act . Paternity establishmen t shoul d b e i n th e proces s o f transitio n t o more streamline d processe s unde r th e requirement s o f th e Omnibu s Budget Reconciliatio n Ac t o f 199 3 (OBRA) , whic h require s state s to establis h simpl e civi l processe s fo r voluntary establishmen t o f paternity, t o b e availabl e a t th e tim e o f birt h an d afte r birth , i n an d out o f th e hospita l (42 U.S.C. 666 et seq). Th e program s ar e t o b e i n place b y Januar y 1995 . Th e voluntar y acknowledgmen t ca n b e treated b y th e state s a s conclusiv e o r a s a rebuttabl e presumption . Court actio n wil l nevertheless stil l be require d t o establis h paternity .

95 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families Involuntary/contested paternit y processe s ar e als o governe d b y OBRA 93 . Th e statut e require s th e state s t o legislat e tha t geneti c testing demonstratin g a hig h probabilit y tha t a ma n i s th e fathe r will establis h a conclusiv e o r rebuttabl e presumptio n o f paternity . Alternatively, th e statut e require s enactmen t o f a process to establis h paternity b y defaul t afte r servic e an d notic e o f default . Involuntary paternit y proceeding s ca n b e initiate d b y th e mothe r or b y th e state . Th e mothe r ma y us e a privat e lawye r t o establis h paternity an d obtai n a suppor t order . I n th e alternative , sh e ca n request th e stat e child-suppor t enforcemen t agenc y fo r assistance . The stat e ca n collec t a fe e an d cost s fo r benefit s whic h i t obtains . States hav e th e optio n o f settin g u p a progra m s o tha t suppor t i s paid t o th e stat e an d distributed , rathe r tha n creatin g a stat e rol e reserved solel y fo r bac k payments . If th e mothe r ha s file d fo r AFD C benefits , sh e i s required t o assign paymen t right s t o th e stat e unde r Sectio n IV- D o f th e Socia l Security Act . Th e stat e the n theoreticall y establishe s paternit y an d enforces support , which , afte r th e firs t $5 0 paid , i s the n deducte d from AFDC . Th e mode l i s tha t AFD C provide s necessar y famil y support onl y unti l chil d suppor t ca n b e establishe d an d replace s welfare a s th e long-ter m economi c solutio n fo r single-paren t fami lies. The reality , however , i s tha t th e adven t o f th e chil d support / AFDC mode l ha s no t resulte d i n a significan t increas e i n paternit y determinations o r i n th e paymen t o f support . Accordin g t o on e report, nearl y two-third s o f welfare benefi t claimant s i n a six-mont h period ha d vali d reason s fo r no t cooperatin g i n th e searc h fo r th e father; o f thos e allegin g goo d cause , nearl y two-third s claime d a threat o f physica l har m eithe r t o th e chil d o r t o themselve s a s th e reason (Social Security Bulletin 1983 , 7) . Th e lo w rat e o f AFD C paternity determination s appear s t o b e happenin g fo r severa l rea sons. First, the mothers legitimatel y fea r th e consequence s o f namin g the fathe r an d eithe r li e o r withhol d information . Second , eve n where informatio n i s provided, ther e i s little incentiv e t o pursu e th e fathers becaus e o f thei r perceive d inabilit y t o pay , an d th e lac k o f incentives i n th e structur e whic h rewar d th e establishmen t o f pater nity separat e fro m it s consequence s fo r economi c support . Third , given th e limitation s o f welfar e benefits , mother s ma y d o better no t to lea d th e bureaucrac y t o th e father , i f th e fathe r wil l continu e

9 6 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

informally t o provid e support ; th e mothe r ca n the n combin e under the-table contribution s fro m th e fathe r wit h meage r welfar e benefits . This may b e a reasonable qui d pro qu o fo r father s wh o fea r th e long term consequence s o f a legal suppor t order . A recen t stud y o f tw o larg e Arizon a countie s indicate d tha t 7 0 percent o f paternit y case s wer e brough t unde r th e AFD C process . The proces s i s slow ; les s tha n 6 percen t o f th e case s opene d durin g 1988 an d 198 9 ha d establishe d paternit y b y 1991 . Where paternit y had bee n established , 8 7 percen t o f th e father s wer e employed , compared wit h 6 2 percen t o f putativ e fathers . Th e stud y als o indi cated tha t 3 6 percen t o f th e father s whos e paternit y wa s no t adjudi cated were i n prison . The step s necessar y t o establis h paternit y ar e especiall y interest ing i n ligh t o f wha t w e kno w abou t th e relationshi p betwee n th e parents a t th e tim e o f birth . Accordin g t o on e surve y o f 33 4 unwe d parents, most o f the childre n were no t conceive d in casua l encounter s (Wattenberg 1993 , 10). Half th e father s live d with th e mothe r befor e the birt h o f th e child , an d one-quarte r o f th e father s wer e stil l cohabiting wit h th e mothe r whe n th e chil d wa s on e yea r o r less . Approximately tw o third s o f th e father s wer e presen t a t th e birth s of thei r children . Accordin g t o anothe r researcher , nearl y 8 5 percen t of father s wh o d o no t marr y th e mother s o f thei r childre n continu e their relationshi p wit h th e mothe r durin g th e pregnancy , bu t thi s drops t o 64 percent tw o year s afte r th e birth , an d t o 55 percen t thre e years afte r th e birt h (William s an d William s 1989) . These pattern s ar e significan t becaus e som e state s hav e estab lished voluntar y paternit y procedure s i n hospitals , wit h a succes s rate a s hig h a s 4 0 percen t voluntar y acknowledgmen t o f paternit y before th e chil d and mothe r wer e discharged . I n on e program studie d there wa s a significan t rac e differentia l betwee n thos e putativ e fa thers provide d wit h a declaratio n o f parentag e form : 6 2 percen t o f white father s wer e presente d wit h th e form , bu t onl y 4 1 percen t o f Black father s (Wattenber g 1993 , 226). 10 I n th e sam e study , onl y about 1 5 percen t o f th e me n state d tha t the y disavowe d fatherhood , so a hig h proportio n o f father s acknowledge d thei r fatherhoo d pri vately t o th e mother , eve n i f no t legally . A ver y hig h rat e o f th e fathers i n th e stud y sa w thei r childre n t o som e exten t afte r thei r birth: 8 4 percen t o f Blac k fathers , an d 7 8 percen t o f whit e fathers . This connectio n wit h thei r childre n raise s fascinatin g question s

97 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families about ho w th e connectio n i s viewe d an d th e distinctiv e characteris tics o f mal e an d femal e nonmarita l singl e parenting . The lega l establishmen t o f paternit y entitle s th e chil d t o a rang e of economi c support . I n additio n t o chil d support , th e chil d ha s th e right t o othe r benefit s whic h deriv e fro m th e father , includin g socia l security payments , veteran' s benefits , worker' s compensation , an d health benefits . Th e establishmen t o f paternit y ma y als o provid e access to famil y medica l history . Finally , paternit y ca n provide right s to custod y an d visitation , or , i n th e alternative , ca n confe r th e righ t to voluntarily surrende r parenta l right s i n a n adoption . The establishmen t o f paternit y i s als o a prerequisit e t o right s o f custody o r visitation . Unde r th e Unifor m Parentag e Act , ther e i s a list o f factor s t o b e take n int o consideratio n t o determin e whethe r and t o wha t exten t a social/psychologica l relationshi p shoul d b e permitted. Th e relationshi p i s not presumed ; unde r th e Unifor m Act , the father' s paternit y doe s no t entitl e hi m t o a relationshi p i n th e same manne r tha t marriag e i s presume d t o entitl e hi m t o establis h or preserv e som e noneconomi c relationship . I n orde r t o b e entitle d to visitation , a putative fathe r mus t tak e som e step s t o acknowledg e the chil d b y developin g a n emotiona l relationshi p o r providin g fi nancial support . I t seem s clea r tha t visitatio n an d custod y ar e no t encouraged, bu t ther e ar e ver y littl e empirica l dat a t o confir m o r challenge th e anecdota l evidence . The paternit y structure , an d it s concep t o f fathering , i s a stron g disincentive t o alternativ e famil y forms . Preservin g o r creatin g th e opportunity (right? ) fo r a relationshi p i s sacrifice d du e t o lac k o f marriage. Anothe r wa y t o thin k o f thi s i s tha t th e mothe r shoul d not b e subjec t t o th e sam e constraint s o r require d t o b e par t o f th e same legall y constructe d "family " whe n th e fathe r wa s no t willin g to establis h a marita l relationship . Bu t tha t sacrifice s th e child' s potential gai n o f anothe r adul t relationshi p i n orde r t o preserv e th e independence an d choice s o f adults . This structur e make s i t ver y difficul t t o suppor t a single-paren t family qu a single-paren t family . Instead , th e consequenc e o f th e failure t o form a "real" famil y i s to discount an d discourag e relation ships, economi c o r otherwise , t o suppor t thi s famil y form . If th e benefit s fo r widow s wer e availabl e t o nonmarita l singl e parents, thos e benefit s woul d b e roughl y doubl e th e benefit s cur rently pai d o n welfare . Socia l securit y benefit s includ e bot h a benefi t

9 8 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

to th e survivin g caretake r paren t an d a separat e benefi t t o th e chil dren, adjuste d accordin g t o th e numbe r o f children . Th e basi c for mula unde r socia l securit y i s tha t th e survivin g spous e o f a full y insured worke r carin g fo r a chil d unde r sixtee n ma y collec t 75 percent o f th e amoun t th e worker woul d hav e receive d ha d h e o r sh e retired. Th e spouse' s benefit s ar e onl y pai d unti l th e younges t chil d reaches ag e sixteen , althoug h th e child' s benefit s continu e unti l th e age o f eightee n o r nineteen . Th e caretake r i s no t the n eligibl e fo r further benefit s unti l ag e sixty , a t whic h tim e h e o r sh e ca n receiv e 100 percen t o f th e benefit s whic h woul d hav e bee n du e t o th e deceased worke r ha d tha t worke r live d t o th e ag e o f retiremen t (O'Connell 1993) . The downsid e t o thi s syste m i s that th e eligibilit y requirements fo r benefit s ma y disproportionatel y impac t youn g sin gle parents, an d th e differential s i n th e amoun t o f th e benefits whic h are based o n th e incom e o f th e decease d worker. 11 Welfare Because th e paternit y rat e i s s o low , acces s t o th e chil d suppor t o r widow suppor t structure s i s denie d fo r th e majorit y o f nonmarita l single parents . Thei r mos t critica l lega l suppor t structur e i s th e structure o f welfare . Th e situatio n an d treatmen t o f nonmarita l mothers o n welfar e demonstrate s th e sever e consequence s deeme d justified b y rationalization s base d o n stigma . Th e complexitie s o f welfare meri t clos e analysis here , because welfare i s the mos t power ful lega l structur e i n th e live s o f nonmarita l singl e parents . Welfare refor m particularl y target s nonmarita l singl e parents , al though it s provision s wil l equall y impac t divorce d singl e parents . The underlyin g analysi s o f th e bil l is that marriage , o r rathe r lac k of marriage, i s th e caus e o f povert y I n addition , povert y program s support th e failur e t o marr y an d continu e th e cycle . Welfare , then , encourages th e creatio n o f single-paren t families , an d tha t create s more poverty . Th e solution , then , i s to diminis h welfar e suppor t an d encourage marriag e a s th e solutio n t o povert y I n orde r t o accom plish thos e goals , th e propose d legislatio n doe s severa l things . I t eliminates entitlemen t t o suppor t an d shift s fundin g t o blo c grants , with th e amoun t o f th e grant s fixe d an d capped , thereb y refusin g t o provide suppor t accordin g t o need , an d t o provid e suppor t a t al l fo r some i n need . Dependin g upo n th e bill , th e legislatio n discourage s

99 / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families or denies benefits t o teenagers, mothers who have additional childre n while o n welfare , childre n whos e paternit y i s no t established , an d those wh o hav e collecte d benefit s fo r a certain perio d o f tim e (Hous e Report 4 1995). 12 What put s wome n o n welfar e an d keep s the m ther e i s women' s low pa y fo r women' s work , an d lac k o f car e an d securit y fo r thei r children. I n orde r t o qualif y fo r welfare , ther e mus t no t simpl y b e a gap betwee n incom e an d expenses , bu t rathe r significan t poverty . The eligibilit y requirement s stipulat e th e depletio n o f resource s which migh t b e helpfu l i n increasin g employmen t opportunities , particularly th e availabilit y o f transportation . I n addition , payment s of chil d suppor t an d eve n mor e so , incom e fro m employment , ar e highly taxed , arguabl y penalized , b y th e existin g structur e o f th e welfare system . For example , i n Florid a a s o f mid-199 5 th e claimant' s tota l asset s could no t excee d $1,000 , plu s a ca r value d a t les s tha n $1,500 . Earnings o n averag e coul d no t excee d $57 0 pe r month . Ever y dolla r of incom e fro m wag e wor k i s deducte d fro m th e benefi t amount . The benefi t amount , however , i s quit e low ; fo r example , i n Florid a the maximu m AFD C gran t fo r a famil y o f thre e i s $30 3 pe r mont h (Committee o n Way s an d Mean s 1993) . Welfare o n averag e cover s only slightl y ove r half ot income needs , requiring mos t welfar e mother s t o wor k of f th e book s i n orde r t o survive (Meucc i 1992 , 65). I n 199 2 Christophe r Jenck s estimate d that i n th e absenc e o f noncas h benefits , singl e mother s nee d $15,00 0 per yea r t o pa y fo r essential s (Jenck s 1992) . Thi s nee d i s fa r mor e than wha t on e ca n obtai n o n AFDC . Fe w o f th e wome n o n welfar e can ear n tha t muc h i f the y leav e AFDC ; it i s mor e realisti c t o expec t them t o ear n $10,00 0 t o $11,000 , Jenck s estimated , stil l leavin g a n annual ga p of $4,000 t o $5,000. The ga p might b e close d by paymen t of chil d support , bu t father s typicall y d o no t mak e a larg e incom e and unde r then-curren t guidelines , migh t onl y b e ordere d t o pa y a n average chil d suppor t paymen t o f $2,00 0 annually . Fo r nonmarita l single parents , ther e ma y b e n o chil d suppor t i n th e absenc e o f established paternit y Eve n wit h chil d support , th e mothe r wil l nee d an additiona l $2,00 0 t o $3,00 0 pe r yea r o f publi c suppor t (Jenck s 1992). Mor e suppor t i s neede d i f th e mothe r canno t fin d work , cannot fin d full-tim e work , o r i s no t pai d chil d support . Th e impac t of welfare refor m wil l be to remov e th e ne t entirel y an d subjec t poo r

lOO / LA W & S I N G L E PARENT S

women t o free-fall . Jenck s ha s estimate d tha t a two-yea r tim e limi t would cu t th e numbe r o f recipient s b y 7 0 percent . Most welfar e recipient s d o wag e work , man y o f the m of f th e books, t o dea l wit h th e ga p betwee n welfar e benefit s an d famil y needs. Singl e parent s i n genera l hav e a hig h rat e o f labo r forc e participation. Those most likely to leave welfare when they begin wage work are nonmarital single mothers. Divorce d mother s ar e more likel y t o combin e wor k an d welfare . A t an y poin t i n time , about one-thir d o f welfar e mother s ar e working ; ove r time , abou t one-half hav e som e labo r marke t contact ; wor k i s th e dominan t means ou t o f welfare . Investment s i n educatio n hav e greate r valu e than investment s i n wor k experienc e i n mothers ' abilit y t o get of f o f welfare. Raisin g a family o n welfar e doe s not destro y th e wor k ethic : a hig h proportio n (8 1 percent ) o f th e daughter s o f wome n wh o ar e "highly dependent " o n welfare , tha t is , o n welfar e fo r mor e tha n seven years , d o not liv e off th e welfar e roll s (Bra y 1992 , 5). The presumption s o f th e welfar e system , tha t singl e parent s ar e lazy o r tha t afte r a temporary transitio n the y coul d fin d wor k suffi cient t o suppor t thei r family , ar e simpl y unsupported . Th e abilit y t o place responsibility fo r maldistributio n o f resource s o n singl e parent s is possible onl y by believin g i n th e justifications fo r stigma . It i s als o importan t t o not e tha t th e welfar e system , accordin g t o the studies , ha s littl e o r nothin g t o d o wit h th e rat e o f marriag e (McLanahan an d Sandefu r 1994 ; Furstenber g an d Cherli n 1991) . Welfare benefit s ma y enabl e divorce d mother s t o mov e ou t o f thei r parents' house , o r lesse n th e pressur e t o remarry . Th e syste m doe s impose a penalty o n marriag e i n th e sens e tha t marriag e ma y legall y connect th e welfar e recipien t an d anothe r adult , an d thei r resultin g combined incom e ma y excee d th e allowe d limit . No t marryin g ma y preserve th e abilit y t o pool mor e resources . The failur e t o marr y may , however , simpl y reflec t th e declin e o f marital prospects , an d a greate r likelihoo d o f workin g you r wa y of f welfare. Poo r singl e mom s ar e no t goo d marriag e prospect s them selves, an d i n additio n fin d i t difficul t t o connec t wit h me n wh o ca n contribute economicall y an d otherwis e t o th e famil y (Harris , K . 1993, 322) . Just a s ther e i s littl e o r n o impac t o f welfar e o n th e rat e o f marriage, ther e i s littl e o r n o impac t o n th e rat e o f childbirt h (Han dler 1994) . Ye t th e myt h tha t i t affect s bot h i s widespread . Ou r

i o i / Nonmarital Single-Parent Families policy o f justifyin g punitiv e polic y towar d thes e singl e parent s i n particular i s simpl y no t born e ou t b y th e facts ; tha t is , people d o no t have children t o get benefits, s o the existin g structur e doe s not foste r the creatio n o f single-paren t families , an d bette r suppor t o f single parent familie s shoul d no t b e resiste d o n thos e grounds . It shoul d b e emphasize d tha t th e attac k o n women' s dependenc e on welfar e doe s no t exten d t o women' s dependenc e generally . Th e pathological labe l attache d t o poo r wome n o n welfar e i s not attache d to poo r wome n dependen t o n a husban d withi n marriage . T o th e contrary, th e welfar e refor m rhetori c clearl y view s dependenc e o n a spouse (marriage ) a s healthy ; i t i s dependenc e o n th e stat e tha t i s not (Murra y 1995) . In additio n t o th e inadequacie s o f wag e work , th e welfar e struc ture increasingl y take s les s an d les s accoun t o f dependenc y work . Single mother s ar e expecte d t o work , despit e th e fac t tha t th e work place structur e doe s no t accommodat e parentin g an d despit e th e significant cost s o f eve n low-qualit y childcare . Non-welfare-depen dent mother s ar e no t engage d i n full-tim e work . Abou t one-thir d o f married mother s wor k full-tim e full-year ; o f thos e wh o work , onl y 23 percent hav e children under three . So if welfare mom s ar e permit ted t o d o what marita l mom s do , that woul d allo w significan t paren tal presenc e o f th e mothe r a s a primar y paren t (Sega l 1992 , 32) . Some researc h als o indicate s tha t whe n mother s work , childre n ar e more likel y t o gai n th e mode l o f work , whic h support s th e valu e o f part-time o r flexibl e work , versu s full-tim e mothering , a s a positiv e role mode l fo r childre n (33) . Al l o f thi s woul d suppor t a part-tim e work option , wit h benefit s t o provide additiona l support . As Marth a Mino w asks , doe s i t mak e sens e t o provid e childcar e for th e younges t children , o r woul d i t mak e mor e sens e fo r th e mother t o tak e car e o f th e chil d a t home ? Eve n mor e important , i s the visio n on e o f temporar y dependency , wit h th e goa l o f economi c self-sufficiency? I s ther e a value d plac e fo r caretaker s o f childre n (Minow 1994) ? The economi c consequence s o f nonmarita l parentin g woul d see m to lea d i n th e directio n o f marriage ; th e rapi d ris e i n nonmarita l parenting (plu s th e ris e i n divorce ) suggest s a revolutionar y change , I think, o r resistance , despit e th e stron g condemnatio n an d disincen tives t o th e contrary . Th e positio n o f nonmarita l singl e mother s als o exposes th e gendere d cause s o f women' s impoverishment , an d it s

1 0 2 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

difference fro m men' s impoverishment , a s wel l a s distinction s be tween pattern s o f povert y b y rac e an d gende r whe n lookin g a t th e Black community . A realisti c abilit y t o b e self-supportin g woul d have t o dea l wit h th e contex t o f wor k i n th e live s o f th e wome n o n welfare. Curren t structure s particularl y fai l mos t t o hel p wome n with th e lowes t income s (Parke r 1994) . It is apparent tha t a single incom e i s insufficient i n mos t instance s to combine with parenting . S o the challeng e is to maximize economi c resources whil e admittin g tha t fo r man y singl e parents , wage-con nected resource s wil l b e insufficient ; t o maximiz e chil d suppor t re sources, with a government guarante e o f suppor t i f paternit y canno t be establishe d o r i f th e fathe r i s unabl e t o pay ; an d t o introduc e a means-based chil d allowance , a s wel l a s housin g o r som e for m o f housing allowance . I f tw o parent s i n on e househol d ca n generat e enough incom e t o rais e children , o r i n som e case s on e mal e paren t can generat e enoug h income , but a female paren t cannot , the n i n m y view th e immediat e goa l ha s t o b e redistributio n plu s subsidy , whil e a mor e long-ter m goa l would b e a radical chang e i n th e workplac e t o insure a "famil y wage " b y whic h ever y paren t coul d unilaterall y support a family , an d reconfigurin g th e balanc e o f wor k an d famil y to on e o f famil y (first ) an d wor k (second) . Th e economi c disadvan tage o f minorit y me n canno t b e ignore d i n th e process , an d mus t b e factored i n here . In th e curren t hars h politica l climate , refor m o f th e welfar e struc ture mus t comba t th e proposition s tha t first , w e nee d no t tak e car e of al l children ; an d second , tha t povert y i s no t s o bad . Bu t perhap s most significantly , w e hav e t o argu e tha t single-paren t familie s should b e supporte d a s familie s o f valu e an d worth . Critica l t o tha t enterprise i s demonstratin g no t onl y tha t stigm a ha s n o basi s an d only doe s harm , bu t als o tha t single-paren t familie s hav e uniqu e characteristics, positiv e attribute s whic h ca n contribut e t o al l fami lies.

CHAPTER 5

Single Parents as Positive Role Models

One o f m y strongest , an d mos t surprising , memorie s fro m th e firs t year o f m y daughter' s lif e wa s th e numbe r o f time s tha t peopl e would say , "Oh , ho w ca n yo u d o it b y yourself? " bu t the n retur n t o say, "Ah , ho w luck y yo u ar e t o b e doin g i t alone. " Thes e utterl y opposite response s use d t o stu n me . But the n i t began t o mak e sense . What mad e m e s o "lucky, " in thei r eyes , was tha t b y parenting alon e I coul d paren t withou t negotiation , consultation , o r conflic t wit h a partner. I have hel p an d support , bu t th e parentin g o f m y childre n i s done largel y o n m y terms . Bu t m y sens e wa s an d i s tha t thi s wa s not th e meanin g o f thei r comments . Rather , i t wa s tha t th e benefi t of parentin g alon e i s tha t yo u ar e no t tor n betwee n you r childre n and you r intimat e partner , no r ar e yo u tryin g t o maintai n you r relationship wit h your partne r a t a time whe n i t feels tha t al l of you r attention mus t o r shoul d g o to your children . I ofte n ge t a differen t se t o f response s fro m othe r singl e parents . 103

104 /

L A W&

SINGL E PARENT S

The ide a tha t on e migh t chose , in th e sens e an d manne r tha t I chose, to be a single parent, wa s stupefyin g t o some . But th e othe r respons e which I ofte n go t wa s emotiona l solidarity : sympath y fo r wha t i s difficult abou t singl e parenting , an d affirmatio n tha t thi s i s ver y satisfying an d uniqu e parenting . Yo u are a pioneer, seeme d t o be th e message. It' s har d bein g ou t there , bu t incredibl y satisfyin g an d wonderful too . Despite th e fac t tha t single-paren t familie s operat e withi n a n environment whic h expect s to see them fai l an d despite their undeni able problems , w e ca n nevertheles s discer n a remarkabl e stor y o f success within thes e families , an d we can identify distinctiv e pattern s of parentin g an d famil y dynamics . Th e successe s o f single-paren t families sugges t no t onl y th e valu e o f thi s famil y for m bu t als o it s distinctiveness. Th e strengt h o f single-paren t familie s i s surel y th e strongest rational e t o remov e stigm a an d provid e support , b y th e legal structur e an d othe r structure s a s well . Th e affirmativ e lesson s such familie s teac h hav e somethin g t o teac h othe r families , an d ma y inform lega l structure s whic h affec t familie s o f al l forms . Th e fami lies wh o hav e th e mos t t o teac h ar e arguabl y thos e wh o hav e face d and overcom e th e greates t obstacles , thos e le d b y Africa n America n women. I n thi s chapte r I outlin e th e finding s abou t Blac k singl e parents first , followe d b y a summar y o f th e researc h o n single parent familie s i n general .

BLACK SINGL E MOTHER S AN D THEIR FAMILIE S In three-quarter s o f familie s heade d b y Blac k women , th e wome n are identified a s the hea d o f th e family ; i n th e remainin g quarter , th e mother live s within anothe r famil y a s a subfamily (Malso n 1986 , 6). Two economi c pattern s ar e prevalen t fo r Blac k mothers : AFDC dependent households , and households dependen t o n wages and sala ries. Overall , th e majorit y o f Blac k wome n maintainin g household s are i n th e pai d workforce , wit h highe r participatio n fo r wome n wit h children unde r th e age s o f eighteen . Blac k women' s earning s ar e lower tha n whit e women' s earnings , however , becaus e Blac k wome n are usuall y younger , les s experienced , les s educated , an d hav e mor e dependent childre n tha n whit e wome n (6). 1

105 / Single Parents as Positive Role Models The rang e o f economi c resource s an d househol d configuration s i s mirrored i n on e stud y whic h identifie s tw o typica l Blac k mothers . One i s a n older , middle-clas s woma n capabl e o f supportin g hersel f and thre e o r fou r children , livin g i n he r ow n o r a rente d hom e i n a Black o r integrate d neighborhood . Th e othe r paradig m i s a younger , working-class woma n managin g t o suppor t th e sam e siz e famil y with publi c assistanc e an d work , ofte n of f th e books , livin g i n a rental apartmen t i n a transitional neighborhoo d (Peter s 1981) . Young Blac k mother s operat e withi n a fundamentall y differen t framework tha n youn g whit e mothers . I t i s youn g whit e mother s who ar e usuall y devastate d b y singl e parenthood , a t leas t i n par t because the y lac k stron g self-imag e an d communit y support. 2 De spite th e greate r economi c challenge s face d b y mos t Blac k singl e mothers, Blac k mother s ar e ofte n a model o f independence , satisfac tion, an d strength . A s a group, the y ar e frequentl y characterize d b y a motherin g styl e o f strengt h withou t dominanc e o r abus e o f power . That thi s ha s occurre d i n th e contex t o f rac e an d gende r oppression , coupled wit h stron g criticis m o f Blac k families , i s a testamen t t o their cultur e (especiall y th e socializatio n o f Blac k girl s an d women , and positiv e rol e model s o f mothering) , communit y support , an d social structure s (especiall y extende d famil y structures) . As a group, Blac k women ar e self-relian t an d self-confident . The y see themselve s a s autonomou s an d independen t (Peter s 1986 , 169). 3 One stud y o f Blac k mother s describe d thei r perspectiv e o n famil y life a s on e o f "heartiness , strengt h an d resilienc y . . . struggling an d not dependent , . . . proactive an d no t reactive , . . . involved o n a dail y basis i n tryin g t o solv e th e problems " (Malso n 1986 , 1) . A numbe r of studie s documen t th e bette r emotiona l adjustmen t o f Blac k women tha n whit e wome n t o singl e parenthoo d (McKenr y an d Fin e 1993). Blac k mother s hav e highe r self-estee m an d "inne r direct edness" tha n whit e mothers . Th e parentin g practice s o f bot h racia l groups ar e quit e similar , s o th e differenc e i s no t tie d t o parentin g differences, bu t rathe r t o Blac k mothers ' expectation s o f themselve s and thei r children , an d t o th e realizatio n o f thos e expectation s (Ja cobsen an d Binge r 1991) . Blac k mother s hav e highe r expectation s of thei r childre n bein g independent , havin g highe r emotiona l self control, an d doin g wha t parent s ask . Blac k mother s perceiv e them selves a s successfully exercisin g authorit y an d achievin g hig h expec tations. Thei r self-perceptio n als o correlate s wit h les s traditionall y

1 0 6 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

sex-typed expectation s an d behavior s (McKenr y an d Fin e 1993 , 61). One stud y hypothesize d tha t Blac k mothers ma y hav e a higher sens e of self-estee m becaus e o f th e suppor t o f thei r familie s an d lac k o f stigma surroundin g singl e parent s i n th e Blac k communit y "Chil dren ten d t o b e value d regardles s o f thei r parentag e an d thei r per sonal achievements " (107) . Nonmarita l childre n usuall y develo p normally particularl y whe n the y ar e supporte d b y th e structur e o f an extende d famil y (Hil l 1971) . Anothe r facto r ma y b e a cultur e that i s committe d t o well-pai d wor k fo r wome n an d egalitaria n relationships betwee n husban d an d wife , bu t als o recognize s th e likelihood tha t wome n ma y spen d som e o f thei r tim e a s singl e parents (Peter s 1986) . The succes s o f contemporar y Blac k mother s despit e enormou s odds is grounded i n a paradoxical histor y o f deprivatio n an d extraor dinary survival . Historia n Jacquelin e Jone s (1985 ) ha s eloquentl y captured thi s ironi c interpla y i n th e historica l record . O n th e on e hand, ther e were , an d are , legall y enforce d structure s whic h hav e prevented marital , two-paren t famil y formation : separatio n o f Blac k family group s durin g slavery , underemployment an d unemploymen t of Blac k men , an d th e natur e o f availabl e wag e wor k fo r Blac k women. Intertwine d wit h thi s histor y o f disruptio n o f Black families , however, i s a coexistin g histor y o f stron g nuclea r an d extende d family structure s wit h distinctiv e characteristic s a s compare d t o dominant cultura l models . Thus , Blac k familie s characteristicall y demonstrate greate r flexibilit y i n gende r roles , rel y upo n extende d family an d communit y suppor t systems , an d hav e stron g wor k an d religious orientations . Ke y characteristic s focuse d o n b y Blac k cul ture includ e collectivism , cooperation , obligation , sharing , an d reci procity. Families heade d b y Blac k wome n exhibi t a n alternativ e famil y structure, no t a devian t famil y structure , whic h draw s upo n thi s value structure , a s well a s upon socia l an d historica l tradition s (Mal son 1986 , 2-4) . Africa n American s ar e twic e a s likel y t o liv e i n a n extended famil y structure , wit h grandmother s mos t commonl y par t of tha t structur e (For d e t al . 1991 , 72). Among Black s th e extende d family i s a mor e commo n famil y for m amon g al l marita l group s than amon g white s (4 4 percen t v s 1 1 percent) , an d white s ar e mor e likely t o liv e significan t distance s fro m closes t ki n (2 6 percen t v s 1 6 percent) (Hoga n e t al . 1990) . Suppor t fo r singl e parentin g i n th e

107 / Single Parents as Positive Role Models Black communit y arise s fro m thi s structure , an d include s hel p wit h childcare an d househol d tasks , a s welll a s money 4 The extende d famil y structur e i s not , however , a cure-all . Th e support provide d b y famil y an d communit y i s not enoug h t o lif t th e Black mothe r ou t o f poverty , reflectin g th e limitation s o f noneco nomic support . Fo r example , arrangin g fo r adequat e childcar e ha s been mor e difficul t fo r Blac k singl e mothers , onl y one-quarte r o f whom hav e adequat e care , compare d t o th e mos t advantaged , mar ried whit e mothers , two-third s o f who m hav e adequat e care . Black s more ofte n tha n white s us e unpai d care , an d mor e ofte n us e kin , but th e assistanc e o f extende d famil y canno t totall y clos e th e gap . According t o on e 199 0 study , livin g i n a n extende d famil y ha d n o impact o n th e wag e wor k behavio r o f divorce d whit e mothers , bu t did increase the likelihood o f work by both Blac k and white nonmari tal mothers . Extende d famil y als o helpe d eas e th e burde n o f pre school-aged childre n fo r Blac k mother s (Rexroa t 1990) . I n anothe r study i n rol e strain , althoug h religiou s suppor t an d extende d ki n support wer e important , th e facto r tha t mos t affecte d th e sens e o f role strain , especiall y parenta l rol e strain , wa s th e presenc e o f a supportive partne r (Lewi s 1989) . Just a s Black mother s ofte n demonstrat e stronge r self-estee m an d an alternativ e mode l o f mothering , i n on e respec t Blac k father s als o demonstrate a positive mode l o f fatherin g whic h extend s th e concep t of fatherin g beyon d th e economi c father . Althoug h rarel y studied , Black father s demonstrat e a recor d o f involvemen t wit h thei r chil dren (Taylo r e t al . 1990 , 996) . Thei r involvemen t i s withou t regar d to lega l status ; som e o f th e mos t involve d father s hav e no t legall y claimed paternity , ofte n tie d t o fea r o f thereb y disqualifyin g o r reducing welfar e benefit s t o th e mother . I n instance s wher e father s cannot economicall y provid e support , thei r involvemen t include s services o r in-kin d contributions . Blac k me n ofte n embod y a mode l of noneconomi c fatherin g tha t demonstrate s th e maintenanc e o f nurturing withou t forma l lega l ties . One mus t b e carefu l no t t o romanticiz e o r essentializ e th e strengths o f Blac k women , o r th e nurturin g an d car e b y Blac k men . Strength an d car e ou t o f adversit y ca n easil y becom e a n argumen t for a "benefit s o f poverty " argument . I n addition , on e ha s t o b e careful tha t th e suppor t structur e fo r singl e parent s withi n th e Blac k community no t b e misrea d a s creating th e precondition s fo r singl e

1 0 8 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

parenting. Perhap s wha t mos t strongl y refute s thi s vie w i s researc h demonstrating th e stron g persistence o f the two-paren t nuclea r mar ital family a s an ideal amongst al l single mothers. Support fo r single parent familie s doe s no t creat e single-paren t families ; wha t create s single-parent familie s ar e choice s voluntaril y o r involuntaril y made . I d o no t mea n t o sugges t tha t creatio n o f a single-paren t famil y i s a bad thin g o r t o b e avoided ; I simply mea n t o emphasiz e tha t suppor t of single-paren t familie s i s critical . What Blac k familie s an d communit y structure s hav e t o teac h i s the positiv e resul t o f providin g suppor t fo r al l children , regardles s o f family form . Fro m a child' s perspective , thi s i s th e cor e o f wha t children need—lov e an d acceptance , couple d wit h hig h expectations . Such structure s als o sugges t socia l versu s individua l responsibilit y are valued an d understoo d differently . The pattern s o f Blac k mother s demonstrat e th e abilit y o f wome n to manag e multipl e role s an d d o i t well . Th e lon g histor y o f doin g so enriche s ou r abilit y t o dra w fro m thi s experienc e t o provid e rol e models fo r whit e women , especiall y becaus e Blac k wome n hav e functioned, survived , an d succeede d despit e layer s o f stigm a an d deviance associate d wit h thei r families . I f matriarch y i s simpl y re placing patriarch y wit h a femal e face , the n thi s i s no t matriarchy . The experienc e o f Blac k mother s suggest s doin g awa y wit h th e notion o f a famil y "head " wh o use s powe r t o contro l an d dominate , and instea d see s parent s a s functionin g i n a muc h mor e egalitarian , cooperative, an d communa l way . The experience o f Black families als o demonstrates tha t th e conse quence o f th e dominanc e o f single-paren t families , predominantl y headed b y women , i s no t th e rejectio n o f me n o r th e devaluin g o f men. Th e caus e o f th e degradatio n o f Blac k men i s not Blac k wome n but rathe r racism , whic h i s determine d t o kee p Blac k me n i n thei r place. Th e economi c pattern s starkl y indicat e tha t economi c re sources wil l no t com e fro m Blac k men . Suppor t mus t no t b e a t thei r expense, but clearl y additiona l economi c suppor t i s needed .

GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC S O F SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIE S Just a s researc h o n Blac k mother s ha s dispute d stereotype s abou t Black families , mor e recen t researc h o n single-paren t familie s ha s

109 / Single Parents as Positive Role Models been fuele d b y curiosit y abou t wha t thos e familie s revea l abou t family dynamics , rathe r tha n a presumption o f pathological dysfunc tion. Man y studie s confir m tha t single-paren t familie s ar e not inher ently bad ; whe n analysi s take s int o accoun t economi c variable s an d social stress, th e outcome s wit h respec t t o parenting an d chil d devel opment ar e virtuall y indistinguishabl e betwee n two-paren t an d sin gle-parent familie s (Fre e 1991 ; Vosler an d Procto r 1991 ; Amato an d Keith 1991 ; Watt s an d Watt s 1991 ; Turne r e t al . 1991 ; Olso n an d Haynes 1993) . Other researc h ha s begu n t o evaluat e whethe r ther e ar e an y affirmative difference s betwee n single-paren t an d two-paren t fami lies. Wha t i s beginnin g t o emerg e i s a portrai t o f th e dynamic s o f single-parent familie s tha t expose s som e significan t difference s i n family dynamics . What i s particularly noticeabl e i s the presenc e o f a less hierarchica l famil y dynamic , greate r gende r equality , an d evi dence o f greate r independenc e an d self-esteem . Th e patter n eviden t in th e familie s o f Blac k mother s i s replicate d t o a significan t degre e for singl e parent s a s a whole, eve n thoug h whit e singl e mother s lac k the comparabl e cultura l an d socia l suppor t provide d b y th e Blac k community an d experienc e singl e parenthoo d a s a mor e negativ e and stressfu l status . Less Hierarchy, More

Autonomy

Single-parent familie s ar e far les s hierarchical, an d fa r mor e coopera tive an d communal , tha n mos t two-paren t marita l familie s (Cashio n 1982, 80 ; Hamne r an d Turne r 1985 , 172) . Thi s ma y reflec t th e needs of parents fo r children' s assistance , and/o r th e consequence s o f mothering withou t a fathe r presen t (o r fatherin g withou t a mothe r present). Bu t regardles s o f cause , th e shif t i n famil y dynamic s i s remarkable an d provides a model o f famil y tha t operate s o n differen t assumptions an d ma y hav e differen t outcomes . Th e dynami c contri butes bot h t o th e independenc e o f childre n an d thei r sens e o f inter connection. Th e dange r tha t lurk s here , i n th e opinio n o f som e experts, i s singl e parent s treatin g childre n a s peers an d imposin g to o much responsibilit y whic h childre n ar e emotionall y unprepare d t o assume. Th e dynami c i n thes e familie s certainl y challenge s th e as sumption tha t hierarch y i s essentia l fo r achievin g developmenta l goals. Children i n single-mothe r familie s ar e give n mor e responsibility ,

HO/

LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

and demonstrat e highe r self-estee m an d aspiration s tha n childre n from two-paren t familie s (Barbe r an d Eccle s 1992 , 114) . Wher e increased responsibilit y i s encourage d withi n a strong , supportiv e family environment , thi s ofte n i s very positiv e fo r children . Greate r autonomy doe s no t correspon d t o disengage d parentin g (Kissma n 1991, 25-27) . On e reviewe r o f famil y interactio n researc h ha s sug gested childre n ma y ge t mor e undivide d attentio n i n single-paren t families (Mednic k 1987 , 197). A Different Gender

Dynamic

Single-parent familie s als o generat e a different gende r dynamic , on e which i s mor e supportiv e o f egalitaria n se x role s an d undermine s traditional gende r role s (Belchma n 1982 , 185 ; Cashion 1982 , 80 , 83; Adams e t al . 1984 , 137-40 ; Russel l an d Elli s 1991 ; Measel l 1992) . Single mother s perfor m multipl e roles , and mos t significantly , i n th e role o f famil y breadwinne r combine d wit h famil y headship , strongl y challenge conventiona l gende r roles . For both boy s an d girls , this ha s tremendous significance . Olde r commentator s see m t o sugges t tha t this i s on e o f th e reason s single-paren t familie s ar e justifiably stig matized. I n thei r vie w th e girl s i n suc h families , i n particular , wil l b e "unsuitable" fo r marriage , becaus e the y wil l adop t a se x rol e whic h conflicts wit h traditiona l marriage . I f marriag e ca n onl y accommo date traditional assumption s abou t gende r roles , then tha t conclusio n may b e supportable . O n th e othe r hand , thi s outcom e als o suggest s that i t ma y b e th e childre n o f single-paren t familie s wh o wil l mos t strongly pus h th e lingerin g traditiona l paradigm s ou t o f th e cente r of marriage , an d continu e th e proces s o f constructin g tru e equalit y within marriage . Or , the y ma y mov e towar d som e othe r structur e that support s gende r equality , celebrate s gende r difference , an d in sures gende r freedom . I t i s interesting t o speculat e o n what a nonpa triarchal mode l woul d be ; th e farthes t tha t singl e parent s ca n tak e us, perhaps , i s to a nondominated singl e parent , bu t no t t o coparent ing—the closes t w e hav e t o tha t i s som e ga y an d lesbia n parentin g models. Unconventional familie s challeng e gende r role s an d influenc e gender typin g bot h b y wha t the y sa y an d b y wha t the y d o (Weisne r et al . 1994 , 23) . On e stud y o f childre n raise d i n single-mothe r families afte r divorc e confirm s tha t i n familie s wher e mother s d o

i n / Single Parents as Positive Role Models full-time wor k outsid e th e home , adolescent s separat e gende r role s less a t home , an d al l wor k i s mor e perceive d a s equall y ope n t o women an d me n (Barbe r an d Eccle s 1992, 115-18) . When th e analy sis control s fo r income , ther e wa s als o evidenc e tha t schoo l perfor mance an d job expectation s wer e high ; tha t is , when mother s d o no t have t o worr y abou t income , the n thei r expectation s fo r thei r chil dren ar e simila r t o thos e o f two-paren t familie s (120-21) . I n sum , the advantage s ar e tha t childre n ma y develo p " a greate r sens e o f personal responsibilit y an d self-esteem , an d girl s an d boy s ma y develop les s gender-rol e stereotype d occupationa l aspiration s an d family values , which coul d lea d to thei r increase d succes s in the labo r market" (122) . Th e impac t i s particularl y stron g o n daughters , wh o may shif t o r reorien t goals , an d no t mak e occupationa l sacrifice s because o f th e consequence s shoul d thei r marriage s en d i n divorce . Thus, economi c independenc e i s strongl y reinforced , whic h affect s occupational choice s (115 ; Measell 1992) . Just a s growin g u p i n a single-paren t famil y affect s children , being a singl e paren t affect s th e parentin g behavior s o f adult s (Mot t 1994, 99 ; Heat h an d Cavanaug h 1993) . Ther e i s stron g evidenc e o f differential parentin g b y mother s an d fathers , wit h mother s mor e egalitarian an d father s mor e traditiona l i n thei r gende r rol e orienta tions an d teachings . Whil e mother s i n genera l ma y hav e stronge r influence tha n father s i n two-paren t families , thei r rol e i s stronge r in single-paren t families . O n th e othe r hand , a countervailin g facto r is tha t singl e mother s ten d t o b e les s educated , a facto r strongl y associated wit h mor e traditiona l gende r rol e orientation . Th e stronger egalitaria n orientatio n o f mother s suggest s a greate r egali tarianism i n gende r rol e teachin g associate d wit h greate r fathe r ab sence, a disturbing conclusio n (Russel l an d Elli s 1991 , 6). The finding s o f on e stud y o n th e impac t o f differentia l parentin g or o f differen t famil y structur e o n th e se x rol e behavio r o f boy s and girl s ar e quit e fascinating , suggestin g a strikin g differentia l i n behavior (Hilto n an d Haldema n 1991 , 114). Th e childre n wh o wer e least sex-segregate d i n th e househol d task s the y performe d wer e daughters o f singl e parents ; bu t th e son s o f singl e parent s wer e more sex-segregate d i n househol d task s tha n th e son s i n two-paren t households. Th e perceptio n o f marrie d an d single-paren t mother s was tha t th e qualit y o f wor k don e wa s abou t th e same , althoug h i n single-parent home s th e childre n o n averag e spen t ninetee n minute s

1 1 2 / LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

more pe r da y o n househol d wor k tha n di d childre n i n two-paren t families (Barbe r an d Eccle s 1992) . Whethe r mother s worke d ha d a sex-differentiated impact : accordin g t o on e study , whe n mother s work full-time , thi s correlate d wit h highe r self-estee m an d goal s fo r their daughters , a s compare d t o th e son s an d daughter s o f unem ployed singl e mother s (Allessandr i 1992 , 429). Single-parent familie s ar e a developing , imperfec t mode l o f th e families whic h wome n choos e t o make , rathe r tha n th e familie s which wome n ar e ofte n force d t o liv e with , o r unconsciousl y fal l into. Th e choic e o f singl e parenthood , despit e th e economi c conse quences an d stron g socia l stigma , ca n b e interprete d a s a profoun d revolution i n th e famil y an d a stron g rejectio n o f marriage . I t i s not , I think, a rejection o f men . Rather , i t i s a rejection o f patriarchy , o f a system i n whic h me n ar e i n control . Many , i f no t most , singl e mothers hav e me n i n thei r lives , as lovers and/o r friends . Th e choic e of singl e parentin g i s not a choice t o exclud e men . Similarly, fo r me n i t i s no t a rejectio n o f women . I t is , rather , a rejection o f th e traditiona l mal e rol e a s dictate d b y patriarchy , a rol e largely limite d t o economi c fathering . Fo r men , singl e parentin g seems eve n mor e strongl y t o b e a recastin g o f fatherhood . I t i s single-parent fathers , I woul d argue , wh o hav e contribute d perhap s more tha n mos t othe r group s o f fathers , t o openin g a dialogu e in orde r t o explor e a differen t conceptio n o f fatherhood . Wha t i s fascinating abou t thi s proces s i s ho w th e lega l system , b y it s rule s and structures , pushes that dialogu e and exploratio n towar d confron tation, adversaria l conflict , an d woman-blaming . Instea d o f support ing a differen t notio n o f fathering , th e lega l syste m pushe s i n th e direction o f a n either-o r battl e fo r childre n conceive d o f a s parenta l property. Th e emergenc e o f a differen t notio n o f fatherin g ha s bee n in spit e of , no t becaus e of , th e lega l system . The ne w fatherin g exemplifie d b y singl e parent s i s a radicall y different mode l fro m traditiona l fatherhood , whethe r withi n th e marital family , a t divorce , or as an unwe d father . Singl e father s teac h that me n ca n paren t a s wel l a s wome n despite, no t becaus e of , thei r socialization an d th e structur e o f wag e work . Thi s beg s th e questio n of wha t fatherin g migh t loo k lik e wit h differen t socializatio n an d radically altere d wag e wor k structures . Perhap s th e son s o f singl e fathers an d mother s wil l sho w us . Nevertheless, th e mode l o f singl e fathers, wit h sol e o r primar y custod y o r a s involve d noncustodia l

113 / Single Parents as Positive Role Models parents, i s a mode l fo r al l me n t o us e a s the y begi n t o challeng e ingrained assumption s abou t fathers . Thei r succes s suggest s a mode l for two-paren t families . Thei r interrelationship s wit h wome n sug gest tha t a n interestin g compariso n coul d b e mad e wit h mother' s relationships wit h men . Support Networks Single-parent familie s als o provid e model s o f suppor t networks , fa milial an d nonfamilial , whic h ar e essentia l t o parenting . Necessit y i s the mothe r o f invention . Th e necessit y o f suppor t fo r caregivin g an d nurturing wor k i s a n inescapabl e fac t fo r al l parents . Th e singl e parents wh o functio n wel l commonl y hav e goo d suppor t networks . The stronges t mode l i s Africa n America n single-paren t families , who hav e stron g extende d famil y patterns , stronge r tha n i n whit e communities. Base d both o n necessit y an d cultura l traditions , i n thi s model th e chil d i s th e chil d o f a large r community , no t simpl y th e responsibility o f th e paren t o r parent s i n th e household . Further more, th e structur e o f th e child' s househol d o r immediat e famil y i s irrelevant t o th e child' s valu e o r th e community' s responsibilit y fo r the child' s well-being . Extende d famil y include s ki n an d nonkin , connected b y tie s o f bloo d an d affection . Thi s social , communa l model o f parentin g stand s i n shar p contras t t o th e individualisti c model whic h pervade s dominan t cultur e an d th e lega l structure . T o the contrary , i t suggest s th e importanc e o f socia l suppor t fo r al l parents, regardles s o f thei r numbe r o r location o r the for m o f family , because o f th e ver y natur e o f caregivin g work . I t als o suggest s a n answer t o th e dilemm a ofte n pose d b y thos e wh o rejec t suppor t o f single parent s becaus e tha t suppor t migh t encourag e th e formatio n of single-paren t families . Th e answe r is : but what about the children? Th e focu s o f th e extende d famil y mode l i s th e welfar e o f th e children an d th e welfar e o f th e group . Th e childre n com e first . On e can onl y wonde r wha t lega l structure s migh t loo k lik e i f thi s wer e part o f th e underlyin g mode l o f family , work , an d welfar e law . The mode l o f single-paren t familie s i s o f caretaker s withi n a support structure—whethe r kin , friends , o r pai d care . The extende d family i s simply on e for m o f a support structure . I t ha s it s downsid e in the impact o f group dynamics which ma y preven t o r deter individ ual advancemen t an d thu s caus e th e individua l t o leav e th e grou p

114 /

L A W&

SINGL E PARENT S

(Stack 1974) . Bu t tha t dynami c i s a dynami c o f poverty , no t simpl y a dynami c o f extende d family . Th e extende d famil y mode l suggest s that th e rol e o f th e husban d a s doulia can , i n th e single-paren t family, b e replace d b y th e presenc e o f a stron g suppor t network . I should b e quic k t o add , thi s i s no t simpl y a replacement . I t i s different, an d no t ever y piec e ca n b e replaced . Th e dynami c betwee n partners, an d betwee n parent s an d children , an d eac h wit h th e other , is a complex an d dynami c one , an d constantl y changing . The traditional , an d I woul d argue , th e persisten t caretakin g model eve n withi n mor e egalitaria n familie s i s th e mode l o f a pri mary caretake r supporte d b y a secondar y caretake r wh o focuse s more o n th e caretake r tha n o n th e children . Thus , classically , th e husband i s a backup t o th e wif e wh o parent s th e children ; thi s seem s to b e modifie d i n th e egalitaria n mode l t o mea n a n expansio n o f childcare hel p and , t o a muc h lesse r extent , som e housewor k help . Often th e suppor t come s fro m pai d caregiver s fillin g th e gap . Th e support structur e a s backup i s als o the dominan t structur e o f single parent families , althoug h th e for m o f tha t suppor t structur e i s muc h more diffuse d tha n th e marita l model . Suppor t fo r th e singl e paren t comes fro m extende d famil y o r friends , o r fro m intimat e partner s who ma y o r ma y no t cohabi t wit h th e parent . Th e single-paren t model provide s a n alternativ e tha t ca n be easily supporte d an d whic h would benefi t al l families . W e do not hav e a well-developed egalitar ian caretake r mode l insid e o r outsid e o f marriage . Single-paren t families als o illustrat e th e valu e o f nonparenta l figure s an d th e benefit o f a model which support s maximizin g th e presenc e o f lovin g adults i n th e live s o f children . The importanc e o f suppor t network s an d th e us e o f suppor t net works i s to a far greate r degre e a distinctive practic e o f single-paren t families (Duff y 1993 , 57} Kissma n 1991 ; Olso n e t al . 1994 ; Mark s and McLanaha n 1993 , 481). "Th e additiona l adult s i n thes e extende d single-parent household s ma y fulfil l th e sam e suppor t an d contro l functions carrie d ou t b y man y father s i n two-paren t families " (Stolba an d Amat o 1993 , 544). 5 Al l caregiver s nee d a suppor t struc ture; single-paren t familie s ma y ten d t o mor e strongl y recogniz e this, bu t the y als o sho w th e wa y towar d a differen t caregivin g structure. Withi n thei r exampl e i s th e answe r t o th e developmenta l justification, whic h require s a dadd y o r anothe r adul t i n th e child' s household.

i i 5 / Single Parents as Positive Role Models

CONCLUSION Talking abou t th e positiv e aspect s o f single-paren t familie s i s ver y threatening. I t i s apparen t tha t eve n i n countrie s wit h th e bes t o f policies towar d single-paren t families , ther e i s concer n tha t thes e families no t b e too wel l supported , becaus e t o d o s o would challeng e the social , cultural , political , an d ideologica l positio n o f th e hetero sexual marita l family . I t i s importan t t o thin k throug h th e implica tions o f supportin g single-paren t families . Fro m th e successe s an d positive aspect s o f thes e families , wha t migh t w e predic t abou t the m if the y wer e supported ? First , economi c suppor t woul d mea n tha t they coul d structur e thei r live s withou t povert y dictatin g thei r choices o r th e opportunitie s o f thei r children . Second , socia l suppor t would mea n tha t th e childre n an d parent s woul d no t b e stigmatized . This shoul d g o a lon g wa y towar d undercuttin g th e negativ e conse quences o f single-paren t familie s fo r children . Bu t woul d tha t b e a good thing ? D o we want suc h familie s t o be supported ? Imagine a worl d i n whic h on e coul d choos e whethe r t o paren t with a partner o r not ; wher e th e se x o f th e partne r woul d b e irrele vant i f on e chos e t o paren t wit h a partner ; wher e whethe r on e married o r no t wa s irrelevant . Imagin e a worl d i n whic h bein g a single paren t wa s unremarkabl e becaus e al l parents wer e sufficientl y supported economicall y an d socially . Imagin e a worl d i n whic h th e special challenge s o f singl e parentin g woul d b e addressed , an d th e value o f singl e parentin g acknowledged . What , then , d o w e imagin e people woul d choos e t o d o i n suc h a world ? Th e answer , i t seems , lies i n ou r assumption s abou t wh y peopl e choos e partner s an d com mitment, an d wh y som e o f thos e relationship s fail ; i t als o lie s i n our expectation s an d understandin g o f parenting , an d whethe r ou r understanding differ s whe n on e parent s outsid e o f marriag e an d i n spite o f th e lac k o f o r breakdow n o f a n intimat e relationship . I f ou r fear i s tha t peopl e woul d no t paren t together , the n w e hav e t o as k why. The answer , I suspect, lie s in ou r disquie t an d trepidatio n abou t the abilit y o f marriag e t o reconstruc t itself . I t als o arise s ou t o f ou r awareness o f th e pressur e t o retur n t o traditional , known , "safe " gender role s t o resolv e ever-deepenin g work-famil y conflic t an d th e crisis o f car e fo r dependents . Fear i s the wron g response . I t contradict s virtuall y everythin g w e know abou t single-paren t families , an d particularl y wha t w e kno w

Il6/

LA W & SINGL E PARENT S

from th e positiv e attribute s an d teaching s fro m thes e families . Th e lesson i s the power o f diversity an d the attractio n o f connection. Th e goal shoul d b e developin g pluralisti c approache s whic h valu e th e richness o f families , includin g th e broa d arra y o f single-paren t fami lies. We should trus t th e choice s of adult s a s most beneficia l fo r the m and thei r children . Anythin g els e is paternalistic an d undermine d b y the realit y tha t th e stigm a agains t singl e parenthoo d i s unjustified .

CHAPTER 6

Policies for Single-Parent Families

When I hav e aske d fo r recognitio n a s a singl e parent , a s a basi s fo r understanding th e demand s o n m y tim e o r m y economi c needs , I often fea r tha t th e respons e wil l be "well , yo u chos e t o d o this. " M y choice someho w disentitle s m e t o support , wherea s presumabl y on e who becam e a singl e paren t involuntaril y throug h divorc e o r deat h would b e more entitle d t o suppor t fo r thi s unforesee n an d unwante d status. Alternatively, I have sometime s bee n told , "Well , we don' t d o that fo r marrie d couples , s o why shoul d w e d o i t fo r you? " I shoul d not as k fo r specia l treatment , I am told ; i t i s presumed tha t I want t o be treated lik e all other families . Many o f th e problem s an d quandarie s o f singl e parents ar e in fac t similar t o thos e face d b y al l families . Nevertheless , the y certainl y are exacerbated , especiall y if , a s in mos t cases , there ar e n o resource s to substitut e fo r th e incom e o r backu p parentin g o f a spous e o r partner. Som e o f th e problem s o f single-paren t familie s ar e distinc 119

1 2 0 / LA W REFOR M

tive, however , an d requir e thinkin g abou t th e particula r situatio n o f single parents . Th e need s o f singl e parent s requir e th e us e o f bot h approaches i n constructin g policy . These ar e no t auspiciou s time s t o draf t a polic y o f suppor t fo r single-parent families , indee d fo r an y family . Th e watchword s o f current publi c polic y abou t famil y ar e persona l responsibilit y an d family values . The y translat e int o ideologica l suppor t fo r traditiona l families an d condemnatio n o f unwe d mother s (an d b y extension , all singl e parents) . Curren t polic y als o emphasize s privat e support , maximizing resource s fo r thos e with greate r resources , and minimiz ing publi c economi c suppor t o f an y families , an d particularl y disfa vored families . I hav e n o illusion s tha t an y o f th e recommendation s I se t fort h here ar e likel y t o b e followe d i n th e presen t politica l climate . M y hope i s that the y migh t b e heard. A t best , th e ideologica l wa r ca n b e waged; th e discours e ca n shift . Th e potentia l fo r resource s t o shif t i s much les s likel y i n th e shor t term . Eve n i f single-paren t familie s were positivel y viewe d an d assisted , suppor t fo r publi c resourc e redistribution i s low. Furthermore, w e provide ver y littl e suppor t fo r families o f an y for m o r function , a s i s evidence d b y th e hig h an d increasing rat e o f childre n i n poverty . Nevertheless , i t i s critical , I believe, t o imagin e an d envisio n wha t a differen t polic y woul d loo k like, an d wha t implication s i t would hav e fo r familie s an d children . Devising polic y require s a clea r sens e o f wher e w e ar e a s wel l a s where w e wan t t o go , shor t ter m an d lon g term . W e mus t begin , then b y assessin g th e lesson s o f th e curren t context . Wha t doe s i t tell u s abou t ongoin g dynamics ? Wher e doe s i t tel l u s t o direc t ou r attention? I n th e firs t par t o f thi s chapte r I extrapolat e fro m th e current contex t lesson s tha t shoul d guid e policy . I begi n wit h th e fundamental premis e tha t single-paren t familie s deserv e no t onl y the eliminatio n o f stigma , bu t als o affirmativ e support . Second , policy mus t pa y attentio n t o gender , race , an d clas s differences . Third, children' s perspective s an d need s shoul d b e hear d an d valued . Fourth, w e mus t valu e al l singl e parents , whethe r divorced , unmar ried, widowed , o r separated ; whethe r teenager s o r adults ; whethe r fathers o r mothers . In th e secon d hal f o f thi s chapter , I sugges t mor e concret e polic y goals wit h thes e premise s i n mind . I recommen d a syste m o f eco nomic suppor t whic h mos t closel y adopt s fo r al l singl e parent s th e

121 / Policies for Single-Parent Families model o f Socia l Securit y benefit s fo r widow s an d widowers . Second , I cal l fo r suppor t o f caregivin g work , bot h b y empowerin g sol e o r primary caregiver s an d b y providin g necessar y support , economi c and social , fo r primar y caregiver s regardles s o f famil y form . Third , I advocate restructurin g o f th e workplac e fo r al l parent s t o th e exten t that w e expect parents t o engage in wage work. Finally , I recommen d replacing welfar e wit h universa l famil y support . Thes e specifi c rec ommendations ar e grounde d i n th e perspectiv e tha t single-paren t families mus t b e specificall y addresse d b y policy , tha t is , the y hav e particular, uniqu e needs , bu t tha t thei r interest s ar e bes t serve d within universa l entitlement s rathe r tha n b y policie s solel y directe d to single-paren t families .

LESSONS FRO M WHER E W E AR E N O W Affirmative Support

of

Single Parents

Perhaps th e quintessentia l polic y issu e concernin g single-paren t families i s whethe r t o affirmativel y suppor t them . Thi s issu e mus t be resolve d befor e anythin g els e follows , sinc e i t wil l infor m ever y policy decision . Curren t polic y i s a polic y o f activ e discouragement , stigma, an d deterrence . I t focuse s primaril y o n economi c sanctions . These economi c policie s ar e intende d a s disincentive s t o th e creatio n of single-paren t families , sav e fo r th e smal l minorit y o f singl e par ents wit h th e economi c resource s t o overcom e th e negativ e para digm. Th e mos t recen t polic y t o reflec t thi s vie w i s time-limite d welfare. Economic discouragemen t ha s been largel y unsuccessful . Th e for mation o f single-paren t familie s ha s continued an d increased, despit e the hars h economi c consequence s fo r mos t parent s o f thi s for m of family . Thes e pattern s sharpl y challeng e thos e wh o argu e tha t economics drive s decisio n making , particularl y i n th e famil y arena . The consequenc e o f thi s negativ e polic y ha s bee n no t t o limi t th e formation o f single-paren t families , bu t rathe r t o hur t thos e whos e conduct i s not a t issue—th e children . What w e ca n lear n fro m thi s phenomeno n ar e tw o things . First , people creat e families o f particular configuration s largel y in respons e to factor s othe r tha n economics . Th e stat e ma y mak e i t harde r o r

1 2 2 / LA W REFOR M

easier, bu t th e decision s ar e ofte n intende d an d emotional , o r unin tended an d no t logicall y though t through . Th e stat e ha s enormou s impact, however , o n the ongoin g existenc e o f particular famil y form s and th e organizatio n o f family , particularl y th e distributio n o f wor k and famil y responsibilities . Th e recor d o f th e curren t negativ e polic y clearly demonstrate s that . Punitiv e economi c policies powerfully im pact th e live s o f childre n i n single-paren t families , limitin g thei r opportunities an d lif e choice s a s well a s affecting thei r dail y lives . Second, demographi c pattern s sugges t tha t singl e parentin g i s here t o stay . Tha t singl e parentin g i s o n th e ris e despit e economi c disincentives suggest s tha t th e stron g positiv e attribute s o f single parent familie s nee d t o b e understood . I f famil y for m mean s a difference i n parentin g an d family , bu t no t a distinctio n betwee n "good" an d "bad " families , the n i t i s time t o understand th e benefit s of singl e parentin g a s a choic e o f family . Wha t w e kno w abou t single-parent familie s suggest s a ver y differen t famil y dynami c a s well a s very successfu l parenting . W e als o kno w tha t succes s i s not a matter o f form , an d tha t problem s ar e associate d wit h th e externa l context, no t famil y structure . The failur e o f a deterrenc e polic y i s not , o f course , a stron g argument fo r a polic y o f support . Indeed , curren t polic y seem s t o take th e vie w tha t th e answe r i s t o increas e deterrenc e b y mor e harsh consequences . Th e failur e o f a negativ e polic y does , however , tell u s tha t singl e parentin g is , i n man y instances , see n a s a bette r alternative tha n a two-paren t marita l family , despite its significant disadvantages. A polic y o f suppor t coul d conceivabl y b e articulate d a s eithe r a policy o f neutralit y o r a s a polic y o f affirmativ e support . Unde r a neutrality or tolerance model, th e negative , stigmatizin g polic y approach woul d b e dismantled . A s I argu e a t greate r lengt h i n th e next chapter , ther e ar e stron g lega l argument s fo r stat e neutralit y toward famil y for m base d o n principle s o f privacy , freedom , an d pluralism. Neutralit y i s a policy which honor s individua l choices . In practice , give n th e contex t i n whic h single-paren t familie s operate, neutralit y woul d b e simpl y a les s negativ e for m o f stat e policy, on e o f ignorin g th e issue s uniqu e t o singl e parent s o r exacer bated fo r singl e parents , rathe r tha n th e curren t polic y o f active , negative publi c polic y wit h th e goa l o f deterrin g o r underminin g such a family form . Eve n were w e t o abolis h al l legal preferences fo r

123 / Policies for Single-Parent Families marital families , th e contex t i n whic h al l familie s operat e dispropor tionately hurt s single-paren t families . Mos t significantl y th e prob lems o f balancin g wor k an d famil y ar e exacerbate d beyon d th e dou ble shif t o f wome n doin g wag e wor k fo r a two-paren t famil y an d the problem s o f rac e discriminatio n ar e magnified . A neutralit y policy would a t best represen t a tolerance policy . The consequenc e o f eliminating negativ e structure s woul d b e a begrudgin g toleranc e o f single parents : if yo u ca n be a s goo d a s two-paren t families , o r reac h some minimu m standar d o f acceptabl e famil y behavio r o r function , then you r famil y wil l not b e actively punishe d o r sanctione d becaus e of it s form . A policy of affirmative support woul d g o beyon d dismantlin g existing negative polic y structure s an d actively suppor t single-paren t families. I t woul d recogniz e single-paren t familie s a s a viabl e an d valued famil y form . Th e premise s fo r suc h affirmativ e suppor t ar e simple. First , single-paren t familie s shoul d b e supporte d a s a famil y form becaus e tha t structur e works . Second , an d interrelate d wit h th e first, a polic y o f affirmativ e suppor t i s on e tha t value s children . I t simply shoul d no t matte r wha t for m o f famil y a chil d i s in ; tha t family shoul d b e supported , becaus e o f th e critica l rol e tha t famil y plays i n th e child' s development . Third , supportin g single-paren t families support s privat e choice s whil e insurin g socia l support . Fourth, supportin g singl e parent s value s th e familie s o f al l ethnic , racial, and gende r configurations , insurin g th e mos t basi c and funda mental o f opportunit y structures . Support fo r thi s exercis e o f freedo m an d choic e i s inextricabl y intertwined wit h gende r an d rac e equality . Th e gende r explanatio n for th e creatio n o f single-paren t families , whe n viewe d fro m th e perspective o f singl e mothers , i s the choic e t o parent alon e outsid e o f the power dynamic s conventionall y presen t i n two-parent heterosex ual relationships . I t als o means tha t parentin g a s partners ma y begi n from a different threshol d tha n whe n i t i s assume d tha t tw o parent s are essential . Singl e parenting , then , i s a challeng e t o gende r part nerships. I t i s a challeng e bot h becaus e i t i s rea d a s a rejectio n o f partnership wit h a man , and/o r becaus e i t i s rea d a s supportin g a different configuratio n o f paire d parenting . I f wome n d o no t nee d men i n orde r t o parent , the n thos e partnership s mus t b e create d an d sustained b y som e othe r dynamic . Tha t thesi s shoul d be , I believe , tremendously liberating . Bu t I recogniz e tha t fo r som e i t ma y wel l

124 /

L A W

REFOR M

be ver y threatenin g becaus e i t change s ofte n unacknowledge d pat terns withi n adul t relationships . The gende r perspectiv e whe n see n fro m th e viewpoin t o f singl e fathers i s somewha t different , bu t similarl y liberating . Fro m th e perspective o f singl e fathers , parentin g alon e reject s economi c par enting an d embrace s motherin g a s a mode l fo r parenting . Whethe r explicit o r not , thi s adoptio n o f a femal e model , combine d wit h its implici t critiqu e o f capitalis t labo r marke t structures , challenge s conventional gende r an d socia l hierarchies . I f al l father s parente d like thos e singl e father s wh o paren t lik e mothers , i t woul d forc e radical chang e i n th e wag e labo r market . Th e adoptio n o f a femal e model woul d valu e wha t ha s bee n bot h romanticize d an d trivialize d as women' s work . I t woul d als o requir e rejectio n o f th e curren t model o f fathering , a model tie d t o economi c breadwinner an d disas sociation fro m children . When rac e i s considere d wit h gender , wha t i s apparen t i s tha t th e choice o f singl e parenthoo d b y Africa n America n wome n als o in cludes a rejection o f dua l parentin g wher e conventiona l gende r role s are reversed , tha t is , wher e th e ma n canno t contribut e t o famil y income, o r canno t contribut e a nearl y equa l o r superio r economi c share. Thi s i s reflecte d i n th e disproportionat e shar e o f nonmarita l families i n th e Africa n America n community . Thi s i s no t uniqu e t o the African America n community ; th e sam e dynami c operate s acros s race lines . But i t i s mor e commo n i n th e Africa n America n commu nity, wher e malenes s doe s no t mea n economi c privileg e an d powe r generally availabl e t o whit e men . Fo r Blac k men , th e intersectio n o f race an d gende r i s no t a mixe d blessin g o f benefi t an d burden , o r a double benefi t a s fo r whit e males , bu t a doubl e burde n tha t make s the choic e o f singl e parentin g mos t ofte n a n involuntar y choic e dictated b y circumstances . The suppor t o f single-paren t familie s i s grounded o n principle s o f freedom an d choic e tha t ar e essentia l t o th e equalit y o f children . Supporting single-paren t familie s wil l help brea k dow n th e inequali ties of two-paren t families . Wha t w e know abou t single-paren t fami lies demonstrate s thei r abilit y t o functio n i n tha t critica l rol e fo r children. Th e problem s whic h single-paren t familie s fac e ar e no t problems o f their making , an d solutions t o their problems ar e largel y beyond individua l capabilities , a s the y relat e t o structura l inequitie s which requir e massiv e change , no t simpl y bette r individua l decisio n

125 / Policies for Single-Parent Families making. A n investmen t i n an d suppor t o f functionin g familie s mor e than pay s of f i n socia l benefits , beyon d thei r intrinsi c worth , simpl y because childre n deserv e them . Support wil l no t necessaril y mea n encouragement . Eve n i f com prehensive an d sufficien t policie s o f suppor t wer e implemented , i t would no t mea n th e en d o f two-paren t familie s no r accelerate d growth o f single-paren t families . First , decision s abou t th e structur e of famil y simpl y ar e no t decision s whic h la w controls . Th e fin e lin e between suppor t an d encouragemen t exist s elsewher e withi n ou r system. Providin g healt h car e suppor t doe s no t encourag e illness ; providing disabilit y suppor t doe s no t encourag e permanen t injury . Yet anothe r reaso n suppor t o f single-paren t familie s wil l no t en courage th e formatio n o f single-paren t familie s i s tha t th e two parent marita l famil y idea l i s to o strongl y entrenche d t o b e over come b y famil y suppor t mechanisms . Th e strengt h o f th e cultura l preference i s see n i n th e reconstructio n o f two-paren t familie s i n the ga y an d lesbia n community , an d i n heterosexua l cohabitation . Extended familie s d o no t rejec t th e two-paren t model , bu t rathe r enfold i t withi n a multipl e paren t structure . Cultura l an d religiou s preference a s wel l a s persona l desir e fo r meaningfu l intimac y al l support th e perpetuatio n o f th e two-paren t famil y a s th e ideal . A s one studen t o f min e pu t it , certainl y singl e parentin g woul d no t b e anyone's firs t choice . Of cours e not . Thi s i s so because o f th e power ful cultura l suppor t o f marriag e an d th e understandin g tha t parent ing alon e i s not easy , regardles s o f th e leve l o f economi c support . Finally, o f course , w e mus t remin d ourselve s tha t wha t w e hav e now i s a single-paren t syste m o f childrearin g withi n man y i f no t most ostensibl y two-paren t families . Arguabl y wha t w e mea n b y support i s t o acknowledg e an d suppor t i n man y othe r famil y form s what i s alread y ther e withi n two-paren t families . B y supportin g single parent s w e suppor t thei r presenc e i n nonpatriarcha l famil y forms, outsid e o f marriage . Gender, Race, and Class Perspectives We mus t pa y carefu l attentio n t o race , gender , an d clas s i n devisin g policies t o suppor t single-paren t families . I put rac e deliberatel y firs t because i t ha s th e greates t significance . Th e racia l compositio n o f single-parent familie s i n relatio n t o th e populatio n a t large , th e

1 2 6 / LA W REFOR M

predominance o f Black s in poo r single-paren t families , th e patter n o f reserving th e harshes t result s fo r nonmarita l familie s mos t commo n in communitie s o f color , al l suggest s tha t rac e i s a critica l facto r which mus t no t b e ignore d i n understandin g an d devisin g strateg y for single-paren t families . Moreover , th e contex t i n whic h single parent familie s operat e i s constructed b y race . The cause s and origin s of th e problem s face d b y single-paren t familie s mirro r th e broade r racial divide ; solution s ca n eithe r challeng e tha t divid e o r b e under mined an d ultimatel y fai l whe n the y ar e swallowe d u p b y tha t ever widening chasm . Black familie s mus t b e a t th e cor e o f constructin g policy . Withi n that focu s th e distinc t pattern s o f Blac k women an d Blac k me n mus t be addressed . Th e singl e greates t dange r i n supportin g single-paren t families i s t o furthe r minimiz e an d oppres s Blac k men . Policie s which migh t b e enacte d fro m th e perspectiv e o f whit e me n wil l no t work fo r Blac k me n a s lon g a s thei r economi c statu s continue s t o stagnate an d furthe r decline . Surel y ther e i s a wa y bot h t o suppor t Black women and empowe r Blac k men. Th e succes s o f Blac k women , despite race , gender , an d clas s adversity , shoul d b e studie d an d ana lyzed a s a n extraordinar y parentin g model . Finally , th e clas s differ ences amon g Africa n American s ca n lea d u s t o distinguis h th e nee d for a policy t o addres s no t onl y th e temporaril y poor , o r th e consis tently nea r poor , bu t als o the alway s poor . Like race , gende r i s a t th e hear t o f curren t policie s towar d single parent families . It s presenc e i s jus t a s confounding , a s th e la w ha s only reluctantl y helpe d women ; i t ha s neve r totall y embrace d o r supported women . Patriarch y see s itsel f pitte d agains t matriarchy . Although challenge d b y equality , patriarch y ha s nevertheles s recon structed itsel f t o hid e inequalit y an d justif y th e maintenanc e o f women's connectio n t o me n withi n families . W e canno t an d shoul d not hid e th e dominanc e o f mother s i n singl e parentin g b y insistin g upon gende r neutrality . Motherin g mus t b e validated an d recognize d as sufficien t parenting , no t a s deficien t parenting ; an d motherin g alone mus t b e validated a s a legitimate famil y form . Gender suggest s cross-rac e an d cross-clas s connection s betwee n women. Th e tie s betwee n divorce d an d never-marrie d wome n ar e clear t o many , bu t equall y clea r i s th e potentia l t o divid e wome n against themselves , betwee n th e worth y an d th e unworthy . Further more, th e parallel s betwee n dual-parent/marita l wome n an d singl e

127 / Policies for Single-Parent Families parents ar e als o strong . Implici t rac e an d clas s appeal s ca n b e used t o keep wome n divided , bu t jus t a s importantly , a coalitio n o f women , even i f wel l intentioned , ca n ignor e o r silenc e race , o r operat e fro m an implici t whit e middle-clas s perspective . A gende r perspectiv e doe s no t mea n furthe r renderin g father s invisible, bu t rathe r acknowledgin g tha t th e need s o f singl e father s and singl e mother s ar e different . Th e ver y strongl y gendere d natur e of singl e parentin g reflect s th e strongl y gendere d patter n o f parent ing i n general , a realit y tha t w e continu e t o ignor e i n dual-paren t families bu t whic h i s inescapable i n single-paren t families . Women' s strongest need s ar e fo r financia l suppor t an d fo r recognitio n o f th e nature an d valu e o f dependency/caretakin g work . Men' s stronges t needs ar e fo r socia l an d structura l suppor t fo r caretakin g an d a changed understandin g o f fathering . Tha t understandin g mus t emu late motherin g rathe r tha n traditiona l notion s o f fathering ; tha t is , less tie d t o biology an d economic s an d mor e tie d t o nurturing . Third, attentio n t o clas s mean s tha t policie s mus t realisticall y reflect th e need s o f single-paren t families . Whil e man y single-paren t families ar e poor , th e distinction s betwee n the m ar e significant , particularly th e source s o f poverty , whethe r i t i s temporar y o r lon g term, an d the opportunit y structur e i n orde r t o become self-support ing. Analyse s o f povert y mus t tak e gende r an d rac e int o account , and eliminatio n o f povert y mus t b e a key goa l o f policie s fo r single parent families . Working from

Children's

Needs

The othe r critica l perspectiv e t o bea r i n min d i s th e perspectiv e o f children. W e mus t examin e an d refin e ou r sens e o f children' s needs . To fulfil l th e promis e o f equalit y require s rea l commitmen t t o th e reality o f equa l opportunity , no t simpl y forma l opportunity . Suc h a n analysis wil l expos e th e natur e o f dependenc y an d nurturin g work . It i s absolutel y critica l tha t w e begi n t o thin k abou t th e plac e o f children an d thei r car e within curren t structures . Thinkin g fro m th e perspective o f childre n mean s yo u canno t disconnec t childre n fro m their parents . S o we mus t sto p punishin g parents . It wil l als o refin e ou r sens e o f wha t childre n nee d ove r th e lif e course, instea d o f thinkin g statically . Th e need s o f infant s ar e differ ent fro m th e need s o f teenagers ; th e need s o f urba n childre n ar e

1 2 8 / LA W REFOR M

different fro m th e need s o f rura l children . Polic y fo r single-paren t families shoul d incorporat e th e flexibilit y an d differenc e tha t woul d be informed b y attentio n t o differen t children' s needs . To take th e perspectiv e o f childre n i s to questio n wh y the y shoul d not b e viewed a s a social responsibility an d a social benefit. Th e basi s for doin g s o migh t b e purel y pragmatic . Society' s economi c an d social stabilit y an d growt h depend s upo n th e strengt h o f futur e generations. A mor e compellin g reaso n i s that th e car e of childre n i s a fundamenta l ethica l responsibility . Socia l responsibilit y fo r chil dren arguabl y underlie s ou r stron g suppor t o f two-paren t families . We implicitl y recogniz e th e inabilit y o f famil y alon e t o nurtur e children withou t socia l support . W e provid e significan t subsidie s t o two-parent families , ye t eve n wit h thos e supports , the y ar e strug gling. Stronge r collective , communa l suppor t fo r al l familie s regard less o f for m shoul d b e ou r model . Valuing All Single Parents Finally, suppor t o f singl e parent s shoul d mea n suppor t fo r all singl e parents. An y chang e i n polic y mus t tak e accoun t o f th e complexit y of single-paren t families , honorin g thei r differences , rathe r tha n seeing the m a s fittin g a singl e paradigm . Th e contex t withi n whic h divorced, nonmarital , an d widowe d singl e parent s operat e i s signifi cantly different , a s ar e th e circumstance s o f teenager s a s compare d to olde r singl e parents , parent s o f olde r versu s younge r children , and mother s compare d t o fathers . Th e plac e o f singl e parentin g a s compared t o othe r famil y form s i s qualitativel y an d quantitativel y different i n various rac e and ethni c communities. While man y singl e parents ar e economicall y disadvantaged , no t al l are , an d o f thos e who ar e poor , ther e ar e difference s i n thei r poverty , rangin g fro m temporary t o permanent . Th e dominan t patter n o f economi c disad vantage i s a stron g connectin g lin k amon g mos t singl e parents , an d particularly amon g mos t mothers . It is tempting t o understand th e natur e o f th e proble m a s a gender issue. Indeed , th e treatmen t o f singl e mother s crosse s rac e an d clas s lines, suggestin g a crucia l cor e explanatio n fo r stigm a a s wel l a s a n opportunity fo r alliance s amon g women . Th e connection s mus t b e exposed t o defea t attempt s t o separat e singl e parent s fro m eac h other, particularl y an y effor t t o segregat e ou t nonmarita l singl e

129 / Policies for Single-Parent Families mothers o r thos e receivin g welfare . Bu t I believ e i t i s als o essentia l to clearl y articulat e th e difference s amon g singl e parents . Th e ver y attempt t o identif y distinction s betwee n type s o f singl e parent s ex poses th e importanc e o f rac e an d clas s differences . Extendin g greate r support t o divorce d singl e parents , fo r example , disproportionatel y benefits whit e wome n an d thei r children . Focusin g exclusivel y o n gender ignore s th e rol e o f rac e i n th e stigmatizin g o f singl e parents , when single-paren t familie s ar e th e dominan t famil y for m amon g African Americans . Buildin g connection s exclusivel y amon g wome n again render s invisibl e single-paren t fathers , includin g th e signifi cant difference s betwee n th e issue s confrontin g Blac k an d whit e fathers. Our model s nee d to begin fro m th e leas t economicall y advantage d single parent s an d wor k towar d th e mos t advantaged . I f w e ca n grapple wit h th e problem s o f thos e familie s i n greates t economi c need, the n w e ca n mor e easil y revis e polic y fo r thos e wit h lesse r needs. A n economi c floo r i s essentia l t o buildin g an y constructiv e policy. Ou r model s mus t begin , then , wit h nonmarita l families , th e permanently poor , an d nonwhit e communities . The polic y analysi s mus t includ e bot h immediat e an d long-ter m strategies. Certainl y th e presen t politica l climat e doe s no t favo r pub lic benefit s fo r families . Eve n i f th e politica l climat e wer e mor e favorable, th e policie s migh t nee d t o b e gradua l rathe r tha n a n immediate, massiv e overhaul . I wil l identif y severa l strategie s afte r setting ou t ke y polic y needs .

ELEMENTS O F CHANGE D POLIC Y TOWARD SINGLE-PAREN T FAMILIE S So wher e doe s al l thi s lead ? Th e answer s see m bot h eas y an d diffi cult, simpl e an d complex . Th e eas y par t i s wha t single-paren t fami lies need. Th e overal l goal s woul d b e insurin g economi c suppor t an d the eliminatio n o f stigma . Additiona l goal s o f polic y ar e economi c independence an d suppor t fo r caregivin g an d caretakin g o f depen dents. Th e area s o f lega l refor m includ e divorce , welfare , labo r law , and paternit y laws . W e mus t conside r short-ter m an d long-ter m answers.

1 3 0 / LA W REFOR M

Economic Support The firs t priorit y i s economi c support . Th e specific s ar e no t difficul t to identify : (1 ) incom e sufficien t t o suppor t a reasonabl e lifestyle , similar t o th e concep t o f a guarantee d minimu m income , generate d by wag e wor k and/o r famil y benefits , wit h th e combinatio n o f wag e work an d benefit s changin g t o reflec t differen t balance s o f wor k an d family ove r th e lif e cycle ; (2 ) decen t housin g an d educatio n (fo r parents wh o nee d it , a s wel l a s fo r children , includin g afterschoo l and summerschoo l programs) ; (3 ) high-qualit y childcar e whe n needed; (4 ) developmen t an d encouragemen t fo r suppor t structures ; (5) health care ; (6 ) wage replacemen t fo r necessar y period s o f paren tal leav e du e t o short - o r long-ter m illnes s o f th e paren t o r th e chil d (sick leave fo r th e paren t o r th e child , pai d an d job-protected) . For all that follows , economi c suppor t mus t b e see n a s a precondition, althoug h no t a sufficiency , fo r equality . Whil e eliminatin g o r reducing poverty doe s not guarante e equality , i t is a critical first step . We als o nee d t o brea k th e connectio n betwee n economi c suppor t and othe r right s (o f parent s o r th e state) . Nonpaymen t o f chil d support ha s bee n connecte d b y man y researcher s wit h declinin g visitation: if I don't ge t to see my childre n o r do not play a significan t role nurturin g m y children , s o the reasonin g goes , the n wh y shoul d I pa y fo r the m (or , wh y shoul d I pa y mone y t o thei r mother , wh o cannot b e truste d t o devot e thos e resource s t o th e children ) ? Under current famil y law , chil d suppor t an d custod y o r visitatio n ar e tech nically separate . Failur e t o pa y suppor t doe s no t affec t th e righ t o f access; failure o f nurtur e doe s not increas e th e obligatio n o f support . But i n practic e th e tw o ar e commonl y viewe d a s intertwine d right s and responsibilities . Economic suppor t shoul d b e separate d fro m parenta l rights . On e should no t b e th e qui d pr o qu o fo r th e other ; tha t simpl y replicate s patriarchal famil y structure . Th e brea k i n connectio n i s justifie d a t the ver y leas t du e t o th e potentia l fo r domesti c violence. The separa tion o f economi c suppor t fro m othe r responsibilitie s o r right s als o would undermin e th e conceptio n o f childre n a s property , an d eco nomic suppor t a s buying right s i n property . I recognize tha t thi s vie w i s controversial, an d i n particula r tha t i t seems t o disagre e wit h som e advocate s o f father' s rights . I s it practi cal t o expec t tha t childre n wil l b e economicall y supporte d b y absen t

131 / Policies for Single-Parent Families fathers withou t bette r suppor t fo r libera l visitatio n an d join t cus tody? I s i t fai r t o impos e economi c responsibilitie s withou t guaran teeing nurturin g rights ? Le t m e b e clea r tha t whil e I a m a criti c o f traditional notion s o f fatherhoo d an d appalle d a t th e overal l pattern s of paterna l uninvolvemen t o r limite d involvemen t i n bot h single and two-paren t families , I d o no t advocat e sanction s agains t father s or imposin g nurturin g responsibilities , o r simpl y disregardin g fa thers. Rather , I dee m i t critica l bot h t o th e welfar e o f childre n an d the futur e o f fatherhoo d tha t w e provid e adequat e economi c suppor t for childre n withou t recreatin g th e mode l o f th e economi c father . What structur e woul d bes t facilitat e thi s an d ho w woul d i t work ? We shoul d loo k fo r model s a t thos e area s tha t societ y recognize s trigger publi c obligatio n bu t no t publi c rights . Th e publi c educatio n system i s on e example ; militar y servic e i s another . An y o f th e spending item s i n th e federa l budge t pai d fo r wit h taxe s als o fit s th e

model.

Economic suppor t coul d b e provide d accordin g t o severa l possibl e scenarios. I n th e shor t run , thos e scenario s woul d refor m existin g support system s whic h nevertheles s woul d maintai n distinction s be tween single-paren t familie s rathe r tha n supportin g the m unde r a single syste m o f famil y support . I n th e lon g run , economi c suppor t should b e provided unde r a n undifferentiate d famil y suppor t system , with universa l benefit s supplemente d wher e necessar y wit h addi tional need-base d benefits . A moderat e refor m proposa l woul d includ e economi c suppor t provided throug h modification s i n th e chil d suppor t an d widow' s benefit systems . First , ful l enforcemen t o f chil d support , wit h pay ment throug h a centra l syste m administere d b y th e stat e o r federa l government, an d th e governmen t insurin g suppor t i f ther e i s inabil ity o r unwillingnes s t o pay . Unde r thi s system , th e caretake r paren t would appl y t o the governmen t fo r th e benefit, an d then th e govern ment woul d see k paymen t fro m th e noncaretakin g parent . Include d within thi s syste m woul d b e generou s support , includin g retraining , for me n unabl e t o pa y despit e thei r bes t efforts . Th e governmen t system woul d als o subsidiz e thos e parent s wh o canno t pa y th e ful l amount. Th e amoun t o f th e suppor t woul d b e se t a t a level sufficien t to insur e a reasonabl e leve l o f incom e an d woul d no t b e subjec t t o negotiation. Nonmarital singl e parent s woul d benefi t fro m reform s t o th e

1 3 2 / LA W REFOR M

child suppor t structur e onl y i f paternit y i s establishe d an d i f th e structure i s furthe r modifie d t o guarante e equalizatio n o f th e amount o f suppor t t o tha t receive d b y childre n o f divorce d parents . For th e majorit y o f childre n o f nonmarita l singl e parents , fo r who m paternity ha s no t bee n established , however , th e benefit s currentl y paid to widows shoul d be paid to these parents a s well. Such a refor m is base d o n th e similarit y betwee n thes e mother s an d widow s an d widowers, an d thei r leve l of financia l need . What woul d fairl y equal ize th e benefit s wit h thos e afforde d t o divorce d wome n woul d b e to insur e fo r divorce d wome n a reasonabl e leve l o f chil d suppor t guaranteed b y th e state . Alternatively, th e syste m se t u p fo r widow s coul d b e expande d t o include al l singl e parent s wheneve r th e ma n i s functionall y dead , that is , wher e paternit y ha s no t bee n establishe d o r ther e i s persis tent nonpaymen t o f chil d support . Suppor t fo r childre n shoul d no t vary base d o n th e connectio n betwee n th e fathe r an d th e mother , o r the failur e o f th e fathe r t o b e a par t o f th e child' s life . A singl e benefit ough t t o b e paid , whil e th e mone y fo r th e fun d coul d com e from variou s sources . One ca n eve n conceiv e o f a tax fund , pai d fro m general ta x revenues . Or , th e syste m coul d b e base d o n a famil y support model , suc h a s th e Swedis h system . Thi s mode l woul d support al l families, regardles s o f origin o r form , wit h a n entitlemen t universally availabl e t o al l families , supplemente d b y needs-base d support fo r housing , childcare , an d incom e tha t woul d b e focuse d o n the need s o f th e chil d within th e circumstance s o f th e family . I wil l firs t discus s th e short-ter m policie s base d o n th e chil d support structure/divorc e structure ; the n incorporatio n o f nonmari tal singl e parent s i n th e wido w structure ; the n th e longer-ter m solution o f integrating al l single parents int o a single-family suppor t structure, includin g a description o f th e Swedis h model . C H I L D S U P P O R T A N D PROPERT Y D I V I S I O N Th e most immediat e pragmatic chang e necessar y fo r divorce d single-paren t familie s i s t o restructure divorc e an d educat e judge s i n orde r t o preven t th e cre ation o f povert y fo r children . Man y critic s o f th e existin g divorc e structure hav e argue d fo r a more equitabl e distributio n o f resource s (Estin 1993) . Th e one-time , clea n brea k mode l o f resourc e distribu tion i s seriousl y flawed , a s wel l a s th e formula s o r principle s fo r resource division . It is also necessary t o reconceptualize chil d suppor t

133 / Policies for Single-Parent Families more broadl y t o captur e th e actua l expense s o f childrearing , rathe r than simpl y th e "necessaries " (Fitzgeral d 1994) . A mor e equitabl e system als o point s towar d th e importanc e o f famil y polic y insurin g sufficient economi c suppor t t o shor e up inadequate resource s divide d between tw o households . The long-ter m questio n i s wha t w e envisio n a s th e relationshi p between wor k an d famil y o r th e appropriat e rang e o f relationships . In th e settin g o f divorce , give n th e interrelationshi p o f th e marita l and postmarita l famil y an d th e constructio n o f singl e parenthoo d within th e marita l famil y an d a t divorce , ou r visio n mus t encompas s both ou r understandin g o f th e marita l relationshi p a s wel l a s th e boundaries o f divorce . I n particular , w e mus t decid e whethe r i t i s desirable o r imaginabl e fo r childre n t o functio n wit h mor e tha n on e parent a s a nurturing , caretakin g paren t durin g thei r minority , an d particularly a t younge r age s whe n childre n ar e mos t dependent . W e must als o decide whether, i f w e permi t parent s t o choos e th e leve l of their involvemen t i n nurturin g an d caretaking , w e ar e committe d t o removing gende r a s a determinan t o f wh o doe s full-scal e parenting . Furthermore, i f w e permi t variabilit y i n parenting , wil l w e defin e legal responsibilit y an d socia l suppor t differentl y fo r differen t kind s of parents ? W e migh t envisio n parentin g a s varyin g no t onl y a s t o number an d qualit y o f parentin g bu t als o a s t o potentia l parentin g configurations ove r th e developmenta l year s o f children , an d a s including biologica l o r adoptiv e parents , singl e parents , stepparents , and extende d famil y o r friend s wh o serv e a s parents . If w e wan t t o leav e parentin g arrangement s t o choic e an d allo w for th e greates t variet y o f configuration s an d combinations , max imizing freedom , flexibility , pluralism , an d difference , the n w e mus t focus o n makin g choic e equall y availabl e an d o n supportin g equall y the consequence s o f choice s onc e made . Th e substanc e o f work / family relationship s a s wel l a s gende r an d rac e factor s mus t b e vigilantly scrutinized . Neithe r gende r no r rac e shoul d determin e th e range o r natur e o f th e choice s availabl e t o a n individual . I f certai n choices ar e deeme d bette r fo r children , the n w e mus t construc t ou r economic system t o support thos e choice s for al l children, no t simpl y for thos e luck y enoug h t o b e bor n int o economicall y advantage d families. Th e economi c structur e mus t insur e bot h tha t goo d choice s for childre n ar e supporte d an d tha t parent s ar e no t penalize d fo r parenting.

134 /

L A W

REFOR M

In th e shor t term , w e mus t en d th e associatio n fo r childre n be tween divorc e an d poverty . Thi s goa l suggest s hastenin g implemen tation o f federa l chil d suppor t machinery . Mor e importantl y i t point s toward th e necessit y o f amendin g curren t la w to mak e chil d support , whether b y parent s o r th e state , automatic , a s wel l a s calculatin g into chil d suppor t children' s nee d fo r qualit y unwage d caretaking . Welfare payment s t o singl e parent s an d divorc e la w mus t calculat e the cos t o f caretakin g i n al l it s complexity , includin g expenses , psy chological an d emotiona l costs , foregon e wor k an d othe r opportuni ties, i n orde r t o accoun t fo r bot h th e temporar y an d th e permanen t costs o f parentin g wher e on e perso n doe s th e primar y parenting . Such a recognition woul d entai l creatio n o f a family suppor t mecha nism radicall y differen t fro m th e curren t welfar e system . Family la w mus t recogniz e actua l condition s withi n whic h singl e parents operat e an d facto r thes e condition s int o th e structur e o f th e family a s wel l a s th e economi c suppor t o f th e family . Divorc e la w must fac e th e realitie s o f wag e work . I t mus t accoun t fo r th e over whelming se x discriminatio n wome n experienc e i n th e workplac e which i s exacerbated b y the consequence s o f parental responsibilities . If me n ar e t o hav e a n equa l opportunit y t o parent , divorc e la w must suppor t men' s demonstrate d parentin g i n th e fac e o f workplac e resistance o r nonsupport . Famil y la w ma y als o pus h greate r wor k law equalit y a s a necessar y preconditio n t o equalit y i n persona l an d family relationships . Famil y la w i s a powerfu l perspectiv e fro m which t o poin t t o th e inequitie s tha t persis t i n wage d wor k whic h threaten an d undermin e individua l freedo m i n ou r mos t intimat e relationships, a s wel l a s th e abilit y t o rais e a ne w generatio n wit h a realistic expectatio n o f equa l opportunit y no t governe d o r dictate d by gende r o r race . E X P A N D I N G SOCIA L SECURIT Y B E N E F I T S I

n t h e s h o r t OUT , a t

least, nonmarita l familie s shoul d b e treate d lik e widowe d single parent families . I f paternity i s not acknowledge d o r established , the n it i s functionall y equivalen t t o th e deat h o f th e father , a s ther e i s n o father fro m who m suppor t ca n b e legall y obtained . I f paternit y i s established, the n suppor t shoul d b e obtaine d an d custody/visitatio n permitted t o th e sam e exten t a s fo r divorce d singl e parents, modifie d by consideratio n o f th e relationshi p betwee n th e unmarrie d parent s and betwee n eac h parent an d th e child . The father' s choic e is respon -

135 / Policies for Single-Parent Families sible birt h control , plu s marriag e i n th e even t o f accidenta l o r unin tended pregnanc y i f tha t i s acceptabl e t o th e mother . I f no t accept able, th e fathe r ma y stil l b e a fathe r bot h economicall y an d emotionally, b y voluntar y acknowledgmen t o f paternit y an d pay ment o f chil d suppor t wit h entitlemen t t o custod y o r visitation . Th e father i s entitle d t o see k sol e o r primar y custody , althoug h unwe d fathers currentl y rarel y d o so . I f th e fathe r doe s no t wan t t o emo tionally paren t th e child , h e would stil l be require d t o provid e finan cial support . Unde r curren t law , i f th e mothe r doe s no t wan t t o parent wit h th e father , sh e usually canno t bloc k access . The mother' s choice s ar e t o marr y an d b e entitle d t o th e right s and privilege s o f marriage , or , i f th e fathe r acknowledge s th e child , she woul d b e entitle d t o th e sam e suppor t a s othe r divorce d women . If sh e doe s no t marry , sh e shoul d b e entitle d t o a stat e benefi t equivalent t o tha t pai d t o widows . Th e stat e ca n requir e th e father' s economic contribution . I f the fathe r i s not present , th e famil y shoul d not suffe r fo r hi s lac k o f presence ; rather , th e stat e shoul d trea t th e family i n th e sam e manne r a s i t treat s a famil y upo n th e deat h o f a parent. Is thi s a disincentiv e t o marriage ? I t make s marriag e a choic e rather tha n a n economi c necessity . I t assure s th e paren t tha t sh e wil l have sufficien t economi c suppor t t o rais e children . Th e evidenc e suggests tha t removin g economi c consideration s wil l likel y hav e little impact o n marriage. Every availabl e stud y indicate s tha t welfar e is no t a disincentiv e t o marriage , no r i s i t a n incentiv e t o hav e children. Whil e economic s ca n affec t marriag e decisions , th e funda mental decision s t o marr y an d t o hav e childre n ar e emotiona l an d social (o r simpl y sexual) , no t economic . Th e socia l incentive s an d support fo r marriag e remai n ver y strong . Th e practica l challenge s o f parenting similarl y ar e a strong incentiv e t o parenting a s a couple. Is thi s a disincentiv e t o parent ? Parenting , lik e marriage , canno t be forced . Th e onl y par t o f parentin g tha t ca n b e mandate d i s th e payment o f economi c support . Ever y othe r par t o f parentin g ca n merely b e supported , bu t canno t b e required . I t seem s tha t th e structure o f th e la w shoul d requir e economi c contribution , mandat e a livin g standar d o f support , an d the n provid e ever y encouragemen t to psychological/socia l parenting . Th e onl y exceptio n t o thi s woul d be a harmfu l relationshi p wit h th e primar y o r sol e psychologica l parent.

1 3 6 / LA W REFOR M

How woul d thi s work ? Unde r th e Socia l Securit y system , a sur viving wido w wit h dependen t children , whic h include s al l childre n under ag e eighteen , i s entitle d t o benefit s fo r th e childre n a s well a s benefits fo r hersel f a s th e children' s caretake r (Sugarma n 1993). 1 She ma y ear n u p t o mor e tha n $60 0 pe r mont h befor e losin g an y caretaker benefit s (Sugarma n 1995) . If sh e earn s mor e tha n $60 0 pe r month, sh e lose s $ 1 of benefit s fo r ever y $ 2 tha t sh e earn s unti l th e benefits phas e ou t entirely . Ther e i s n o reductio n i n th e children' s benefits base d o n th e incom e o r th e marita l statu s o f th e survivin g parent. Th e amoun t o f th e benefi t i s unifor m i n th e sens e tha t i t does no t var y stat e t o state , an d i s base d o n th e incom e o f th e deceased o r disable d parent . I n orde r t o b e covered , th e decease d parent mus t hav e pai d int o th e syste m fo r si x o f th e las t thirtee n quarters. Th e averag e famil y benefi t fo r a widowe d caretake r an d two childre n wa s ove r $1,30 0 pe r mont h a s o f Decembe r 199 4 (McCormick 1995) . The benefi t amoun t replace s a larger proportio n of th e low-wag e worker' s salar y tha n o f th e high-incom e earner' s salary, bu t sinc e payment s ar e relate d t o wages , th e benefi t amoun t varies accordin g t o th e wage s o f th e earner . In orde r t o mak e suc h a system wor k fo r nonmarita l singl e moth ers (o r th e smalle r proportio n o f singl e fathers) , eithe r paternit y would hav e t o b e establishe d o r a fictiona l fathe r woul d hav e t o b e created. I n addition , eve n i f paternit y wer e established , som e father s would no t hav e a n accoun t o n whic h benefit s coul d b e drawn . I n either th e cas e o f th e fictiona l fathe r o r th e actua l fathe r withou t qualifying income , th e stat e woul d stan d behin d th e benefit , muc h as th e stat e woul d stan d i n th e shoe s o f th e fathe r i f chil d suppor t could no t b e paid . Th e amoun t o f th e benefi t woul d b e th e system' s minimum o r som e calculatio n o f th e averag e benefit . One o f th e feature s tha t i s mos t attractiv e abou t th e widows ' system i s tha t i t provide s a decen t leve l o f incom e tha t ca n b e combined wit h part-tim e work . Th e downsid e t o thi s combinatio n is th e curren t consequence s o f part-tim e work , unles s workplac e structures an d thei r consequence s ar e reformed . Part-tim e worker s generally hav e les s benefits , suc h a s healt h insuranc e an d pensio n contributions; ear n less ; hav e les s upwar d mobility ; an d les s jo b security. Ther e ar e les s job s availabl e i n whic h part-tim e wor k ca n be done a s compared t o full-tim e work . Th e long-ter m consequence s of part-time work , eve n fo r onl y a portion o f an individual's employ ment, ca n be a marginalization an d a devaluation o f th e worker .

137 / Policies for Single-Parent Families Even wit h thes e caveats , th e combinatio n o f famil y suppor t an d wage wor k permitte d b y socia l security , instea d o f th e wag e wor k permitted i n conjunction wit h welfare, allow s for, an d values, nurtur ing o f children . I d o no t mea n t o overl y valoriz e th e syste m o f benefits fo r widows . Bu t I d o wan t t o emphasiz e tha t thi s benefi t structure permit s a healthy combinatio n o f wor k an d family . I f tha t seems t o ti p th e balanc e i n favo r o f single-paren t families , i t i s onl y because simila r suppor t fo r dependenc y i s neede d fo r al l families . Single-parent familie s ar e a good plac e to start. 2 It seem s clearer , viewe d fro m th e nonmarita l singl e paren t per spective, tha t i t i s essentia l t o separat e economi c an d noneconomi c parenting. All parents wh o conceiv e an d brin g int o thi s world a child should b e obligated t o provide suppor t fo r th e child . It simpl y shoul d be a responsibilit y t o th e child . Furthermore , i n orde r t o emphasiz e that economi c suppor t o f childre n i s not a responsibility t o th e othe r parent, paymen t shoul d b e mad e int o a centra l fund , whic h woul d distribute th e fund s t o th e custodia l parent . Bot h parent s woul d b e obligated t o provid e economi c support , wit h credi t give n t o th e person providin g caretaking . Th e stat e woul d ste p i n fo r anyon e unable t o pay . Here a s with divorce d singl e parents , th e clea r goa l i s th e facilita tion o f choic e a s wel l a s th e suppor t o f nurture . Sufficien t economi c support insure s meaningfu l choic e an d allow s fo r th e valuin g o f diverse famil y forms . I t support s childre n i n families , rathe r tha n limiting suppor t t o familie s o f a particular for m o r styl e o r composi tion. Th e goa l i s t o maximiz e th e involvemen t o f bot h parent s (o r more), whil e insurin g sufficien t suppor t i f ther e i s onl y on e o r primarily on e parent . None o f thes e benefit s shoul d b e class-based , bu t rathe r shoul d b e sufficient fo r th e famil y t o liv e a t a modes t leve l an d t o insur e economic opportunit y fo r th e children . Tha t migh t bes t b e accom plished b y no t limitin g economi c suppor t t o incom e supplements , but als o includin g housing , childcare , an d educationa l opportunity . That is , instead o f providing monetar y support , suppor t i n kin d o r i n services coul d b e provided . Housin g i s the singl e larges t expens e fo r single parents . Housin g assistanc e tha t insure s a saf e an d health y environment fo r childre n wit h acces s t o good-qualit y educationa l opportunity woul d mak e a critica l differenc e t o families . Similarly , access t o good-qualit y childcare , includin g afterschoo l care , woul d have significan t impac t o n parent s an d children . Incom e suppor t

1 3 8 / LA W REFOR M

maximizes choic e an d minimize s bureaucrati c interference ; suppor t in kin d i s mor e problematic , bu t coul d hav e greate r qualitativ e im pact an d mor e significantl y chang e th e contex t o f singl e parents ' lives an d th e opportunit y structur e fo r thei r children . The more difficul t questio n i s the level of economic support whic h should b e provided . A t a minimum, familie s ough t t o b e abl e t o liv e free o f poverty . W e mus t carefull y defin e wha t tha t leve l is , give n the commo n consensu s tha t ou r officia l definitio n o f povert y i s inadequate. Th e mode l tha t i s particularl y usefu l i n thi s respec t i s Sweden. Th e povert y rat e fo r Swedis h childre n i s 5 percent , com pared t o the U.S . rate o f 2 0 percent. Th e Swedis h leve l o f suppor t fo r single-parent familie s shoul d b e ou r floo r o r poin t o f orientation ; w e should conside r whethe r i t shoul d b e ou r ceilin g a s well. Dependency Work Economic suppor t fo r single-paren t familie s ha s anothe r integra l piece: the plac e o f caregivin g o r dependenc y work . Shoul d economi c support remai n tie d t o a paradig m tha t require s wome n t o wor k a double shif t o f wage work an d unwaged work ? Shoul d th e syste m b e structured i n a wa y tha t continue s t o allocat e th e vas t majorit y o f dependency wor k t o women ? Shoul d dependenc y wor k continu e t o be connecte d t o short - an d long-ter m disadvantage , s o tha t wome n do i t a t thei r peri l whil e als o bein g socialize d t o d o th e wor k tha t brings the m s o muc h economi c peril ? Thi s i s a n issu e whic h ha s divided wome n b y providin g onl y limite d suppor t t o som e wome n (widows) t o car e fo r thei r dependents , althoug h increasingl y al l women ar e expecte d t o d o wag e wor k full-tim e i n additio n t o un waged househol d an d childcar e work . The questio n o f a model o r goals , an d th e rol e o f law , i s unclear. I believe that th e goa l should be to maximize th e nurturin g o f childre n by a s many lovin g adult s a s possible. Clearl y a parent-child relation ship canno t b e require d an d shoul d no t b e imposed . Wher e on e parent doe s no t wan t t o parent , th e syste m shoul d suppor t alterna tive suppor t structure s rathe r tha n forc e parenta l involvement . Mos t single parent s operat e withi n som e suppor t framework , an d th e structure coul d b e arrange d t o suppor t alternativ e networks , lik e ki n or famil y o r childcare , o r al l of thos e i n combination . Valuing dependenc y wor k require s universa l entitlement . Car e

139 / Policies for Single-Parent Families for dependent s i s a n inescapabl e nee d tha t canno t b e ignored . Th e content o f dependenc y wor k ca n var y considerabl y an d therefor e any polic y mus t b e responsiv e t o maximizin g differen t famil y con figurations whil e insurin g tha t dependenc y wor k i s valued . Another piec e that i s tricky here , however, i s how t o value depen dency work without romanticizin g i t an d creatin g a new gende r cage . Or, how t o fin d th e righ t balanc e by which childre n wil l benefit fro m their parents ' wag e wor k b y th e rol e mode l i t present s fo r them , while als o insurin g tha t childre n hav e th e undivide d attentio n an d presence o f thei r parents . The divorc e mode l o f singl e parentin g i n bot h structur e an d oper ation i s a single-paren t model . I t perpetuate s th e single-paren t role s set u p in marriage , with th e nurturin g parent , usuall y th e mother , a s the primar y o r sol e parent , an d th e economi c parent , usuall y th e father, a s a fa r secondar y parent . Th e descriptiv e languag e o f th e legal structur e i s tha t ther e i s join t lega l custod y wit h a primar y residential paren t wit h who m th e chil d o r childre n resid e an d a noncustodial paren t wit h libera l visitation . Unde r thi s model , th e reconstituted famil y afte r divorc e i s a hierarchica l mode l tha t oddl y mirrors th e dominan t parentin g pattern , tha t is , th e presumptio n that i t i s primaril y on e paren t wh o doe s th e wor k o f parenting. 3 That model is a model of parental inequality. Th e mode l doe s no t contemplate tw o coequa l nurturers , bu t rathe r a dominan t paren t and a secondar y parent , viewe d i n term s o f nurturing . Unde r th e guise o f joint lega l custody , i t i s labeled a s a gender neutral , egalitar ian structure , bu t i t i s neithe r gende r neutra l no r egalitaria n i n structure o r i n operation . I t i s gender neutra l onl y t o th e exten t tha t either paren t coul d b e place d i n eithe r role . I n reality , wome n pri marily continu e t o fulfil l th e caretake r role , either becaus e they wer e the sol e o r primar y caretake r durin g marriage , o r du e t o judicia l presumptions a t divorce . I t i s egalitaria n i n theor y onl y wit h respec t to parenta l decisio n making , no t wit h respec t t o nurturing , becaus e it presumes th e primar y custodia l paren t i s the dominan t nurturer . The nonmarital mode l o f single parenting split s into two possibili ties. First , wit h acknowledge d paternit y o r involuntaril y establishe d paternity, th e partie s ca n replicat e th e divorc e model . Tha t is , the y can creat e a n unequa l parentin g relationshi p eithe r wher e ther e ha s been n o prio r parentin g relationshi p o r t o replac e share d parentin g within a cohabitin g o r non-cohabitin g intimat e relationship . Thi s

1 4 0 / LA W REFOR M

points t o anothe r distinctio n betwee n divorce d an d nonmarita l par ents: whil e the y ma y hav e cohabitate d and/o r coparented , ther e i s less likelihood o f this, and therefore n o parenting histor y fro m whic h to judg e wha t migh t b e th e bes t allocatio n o f parenta l responsibili ties. I n th e alternative , i n th e absenc e o f th e establishmen t o f pater nity, th e othe r mode l i s a mother-child model . The polic y issu e her e i s whethe r t o encourag e th e formatio n o f two-parent families , tha t is , to maximiz e paterna l involvement , o r t o set u p a mode l tha t honor s th e mother-chil d mode l eve n i n case s o f acknowledged paternit y Unde r tha t model , custod y an d contro l would remai n wit h th e mother , includin g th e determinatio n o f wha t kind o f relationshi p wit h th e fathe r woul d b e i n th e bes t interest s o f the child . Wha t i s difficul t her e i s th e goa l o f maximizin g th e nurturing o f childre n b y a s man y parent s an d othe r caretakers / friends/family a s possible , versu s resolvin g difference s an d conflict s between th e parent s whic h affec t th e child . I s hierarch y (meanin g one primar y o r controllin g parent ) necessary ? Ca n yo u hav e a n equality mode l o f parentin g onl y i f i t i s voluntary ? O r i s th e chil d entitled t o hav e tha t mode l impose d eve n i f th e parent s canno t ge t along with eac h other ? Given th e realitie s o f th e live s o f nonmarita l children , i t make s the mos t sens e t o suppor t th e caregivin g o f th e sol e o r primar y parent, an d allo w tha t paren t th e abilit y t o contro l th e relationshi p with othe r caregivers . Question s aris e aroun d wha t t o d o whe n th e adults d o no t ge t alon g wit h eac h other , o r whe n a decisio n need s t o be made ; an d whethe r th e rol e o f adult s shoul d b e tha t o f equals , o r of recognizin g th e primar y paren t a s th e firs t amon g equal s (an d requiring th e designatio n o f a primary parent) . What o f th e instanc e where on e parent , usuall y th e father , want s a relationshi p wit h th e child whil e th e other , usuall y th e mother , doe s no t wan t t o allo w him t o hav e a relationship ? Shoul d th e mode l b e coequa l parenting , or somethin g lik e the divorc e model , with a dominant an d secondar y parent? One answe r seem s t o be t o suppor t thos e wh o wan t t o nurtur e t o the fulles t exten t possible , an d i f conflict s aris e betwee n parents , then requir e th e parent s t o work ou t th e conflic t i n th e best interest s of th e child . Yo u coul d divorc e you r spous e a s spous e bu t no t a s parent; th e parent' s relationshi p wit h th e chil d woul d b e protected . With nonmarita l parents , i t woul d requir e th e opportunit y t o de -

141 / Policies for Single-Parent Families velop a s a paren t onc e th e demonstratio n o f willingnes s an d abilit y had bee n made , despit e th e absenc e o f prio r parenting . In th e alternative , th e mode l woul d b e on e wher e th e custodia l parent's determinatio n o f th e child' s bes t interest s woul d presump tively b e determinative . Thi s custodia l paren t vet o coul d rang e fro m the mos t minut e an d unimportan t detail s o f parentin g t o whether t o permit a relationshi p wit h th e othe r paren t a t all . Implici t i n thi s model i s the importanc e o f a primary paren t whos e decisio n makin g cannot b e challenge d excep t i n instance s o f abus e an d neglect . Under on e model , bot h parent s hav e right s an d acces s to th e chil d and thei r relationshi p wit h th e chil d i s protected ; i n situation s o f conflict the y mus t resolv e thei r conflict s o r th e chil d i s forced t o liv e with th e conflict . I f the machiner y fo r resolvin g conflic t i s expensive , time-consuming, biased , o r i n an y othe r wa y faulty , i t ma y hav e perverse effects . Unde r th e othe r model , th e child' s relationshi p wit h the primar y paren t i s protected . Th e nonprimar y paren t i s force d t o negotiate rathe r tha n entitle d t o asser t rights . T o the protest s o f thi s parent th e respons e i s tha t h e o r sh e ca n avoi d thi s situatio n b y constructing a health y relationship , withi n o r outsid e o f marriage , within o r outsid e o f intimacy , wit h th e custodia l parent . Wage Work Virtually ever y mode l o f support fo r single-paren t familie s presume s that al l parent s wil l work . I n th e shor t ru n i t i s fai r t o presum e tha t single parent s wil l likel y wor k full-time , althoug h i n th e lon g ru n the goa l shoul d b e part-tim e wor k fo r parent s of , a t least , youn g children. The challeng e fo r wor k la w i s generatin g significan t workplac e change t o suppor t families . I f wome n ar e t o hav e thei r economi c status improv e throug h th e workplace , wag e equity , wag e suffi ciency, an d jo b opportunit y mus t b e priorities . Eve n unde r existin g discrimination concepts , i t woul d no t b e a revolutionar y concep t t o make se x segregatio n i n th e workplac e a primary targe t o f discrimi nation law . On th e othe r hand , i f me n ar e t o hav e a n opportunit y t o parent, and/o r i f w e determin e tha t tw o involve d parent s ar e mor e desirable tha n one , thi s woul d requir e mor e radica l structura l changes. W e nee d t o shif t th e curren t paradig m o f th e advers e consequences o f parentin g o n labo r marke t positio n t o perhap s con -

1 4 2 / LA W REFOR M

sidering activ e parentin g a s a preferred employmen t statu s lik e vet eran's statu s (Straus s 1989) . The demis e o f th e presumptio n tha t a singl e wage-earne r ca n support a family require s revolutionar y change . Equall y revolution ary an d challengin g i s restructuring th e wag e labo r marke t t o recog nize an d suppor t th e consequence s o f dependen t caretakin g an d imagining a differen t relationshi p betwee n caretakin g an d wag e work. I f wage work coul d insur e equalit y o f opportunit y an d suppor t for dependen t caretaking , the n wor k la w would b e a powerful impe tus t o dramaticall y increas e gende r equalit y withi n marriage , whil e also supportin g singl e parenting a s an alternativ e famil y form . At leas t som e o f th e issue s whic h mus t b e resolve d ar e whethe r the mode l o r expectation i s full-time o r part-time work ; an d whethe r it i s presume d tha t parentin g migh t involv e a n extende d perio d o f time ou t o f th e workforc e o r workin g a t a less-than-full-tim e level . These question s ar e interrelate d wit h th e presumption s abou t care giving an d th e leve l o f suppor t fo r nurtur e o f th e caregiver . Universal Family

Support

Removing stigm a fro m single-paren t familie s woul d entai l a role fo r public-sector famil y suppor t fa r differen t fro m ou r curren t concep tion o f welfare . Initially , reconstructio n o f public-secto r suppor t fo r families require s long-ter m suppor t t o supplemen t th e inequitie s permitted b y famil y an d wor k la w tha t currentl y operat e t o th e disadvantage o f childre n an d women. I n order t o overcome inequitie s in th e existin g structure , singl e parent s nee d adequat e economi c support t o becom e self-sufficien t (b y educatio n and/o r trainin g which ca n insur e employmen t a t a sufficien t wag e wit h essentia l benefits), o r mus t b e supporte d wit h earning s t o supplemen t thei r efforts t o achiev e self-sufficienc y unde r th e existin g structure . Th e challenge i s t o shif t th e paradig m o f publi c suppor t o f familie s and elevat e th e unme t need s o f childre n i n a politica l climat e tha t vigorously blames , stigmatizes , an d penalize s (o r separates ) childre n of single-paren t families . A polic y fo r teenag e singl e parent s seem s straightforward ; th e disadvantages o f teenag e singl e parentin g nee d no t b e permanent . Those disadvantage s ar e tie d t o age , which preclude s o r make s diffi cult acquirin g sufficien t educatio n and/o r experienc e i n orde r t o

143 / Policies for Single-Parent Families become self-supportin g o r reasonabl y supportin g eve n wit h publi c assistance. Th e mos t obviou s cur e i s educatio n geare d towar d insur ing qualificatio n fo r jobs sufficien t t o suppor t th e family . Thi s woul d require temporar y economi c suppor t t o permi t attendin g school . A policy t o encourag e delaye d childbearing , an d thereb y les s teenag e parenting o f an y form , i s particularl y dependen t o n se x education , availability o f birt h control , an d stron g educationa l an d employmen t opportunities fo r youn g women . The existin g welfar e structur e i s premise d upo n principle s tha t undermine single-paren t families . Th e long-ter m solutio n i s t o shif t toward a universal famil y suppor t structur e complemente d b y needs based supports . Alternatively , needs-base d policie s coul d b e imple mented a s a prelud e t o universa l supports , o n th e rational e tha t those familie s mos t i n nee d o f suppor t woul d b e assiste d first . I f tha t rationale an d polic y goa l wer e full y carrie d out , suppor t base d o n need woul d mea n shiftin g suppor t fro m two-parent , middle - an d upper-class familie s i n orde r t o full y suppor t familie s wit h th e great est economi c needs . There ar e man y famil y suppor t model s whic h migh t b e use d t o construct a n affirmativ e famil y suppor t system , rathe r tha n a puni tive one . Becaus e Swede n i s widel y viewe d a s havin g th e mos t expansive, althoug h admittedl y costly , famil y suppor t policy , i t i s a good mode l t o examin e an d wor k from , a s a long-ter m mode l fo r support o f families . First, w e nee d t o conside r th e contex t (Rosentha l 1994) . I n Swe den, single-paren t familie s accoun t fo r 2 0 percen t o f familie s wit h children. Thi s i s connecte d t o a long-establishe d cultura l patter n o f cohabitation befor e marriage , plu s a hig h divorc e rate . Teenag e par ents ar e virtuall y unknown , a phenomeno n tha t shoul d b e carefull y studied. Th e unemploymen t rat e i s 2 percent . Althoug h ther e hav e been concerte d effort s t o brin g wome n int o th e economy , th e wag e labor marke t i s highl y se x segregate d an d part-tim e worker s ar e nearly al l women . Wome n wh o wor k full-tim e ear n y8 percen t o f men's wages , bu t becaus e s o man y wome n wor k part-time , wome n on averag e ear n onl y 3 7 percent o f th e tota l yearl y wage s o f men . The Swedis h publi c benefi t structur e ha s severa l components , some universal , som e mean s teste d (Dow d 1989b ; Bradle y 1990) . The universa l benefit s ar e chil d allowance s an d state-supporte d chil d support payments , calle d advanc e maintenanc e allowances . The chil d

144 /

L A W

REFOR M

allowances ar e provide d t o al l familie s wit h childre n younge r tha n nineteen, an d constitut e 5 percen t o f th e averag e wag e (Bradle y 1990). Bot h marrie d an d unmarrie d parent s mus t provid e suppor t for thei r children . Unde r th e advanc e payment system , th e stat e pay s the caretakin g parent , an d the n th e stat e seek s reimbursemen t fro m the parent owin g support base d on a percentage o f minimum income , usually 4 0 percen t o f th e bas e (Bradle y 1990) . Swedis h polic y als o follows a polic y o f individua l taxatio n whic h presume s self-support . Parental leav e an d government-supporte d childcar e complet e th e benefit picture . Combinin g th e chil d allowanc e an d advanc e mainte nance payment , thi s i s equivalent t o abou t $44 5 pe r month , whic h i s equivalent t o abou t 6 0 percen t o f th e bas e amount , o r 3 0 percen t o f average earne d incom e (Bradle y 1990) . The means-teste d benefit s includ e socia l assistance , whic h mus t provide a reasonabl e leve l o f living . Th e averag e lengt h o f tim e o n this assistanc e i s four an d a half months , makin g i t trul y transitiona l assistance, usuall y connecte d wit h th e los s o f a job, o r othe r tempo rary situations . Th e numbe r o f single - paren t familie s usin g socia l assistance gre w 5 0 percent betwee n 198 0 an d 1984 . Swede n als o ha s a housin g subsidy . Ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t thes e policie s hav e undermined th e wor k ethic . With al l o f thes e benefit s combined , singl e mother s receiv e 6 4 percent o f media n famil y income ; thei r incom e rise s t o 6 7 percent o f the media n wit h half-tim e wor k a t minimu m wage . I n contrast , families i n th e Unite d State s wit h n o earne d incom e receiv e onl y 2 7 percent o f th e median , an d wit h half-tim e wor k a t minimu m wag e receive 39 percent o f th e median . Comparatively, singl e mother s i n th e Unite d State s ar e i n a sub stantially poore r positio n tha n thei r counterpart s i n othe r industrial ized countrie s (Garfinke l e t al . 1993) . Th e mai n reaso n i s means tested versu s universa l suppor t policies . Non-means-teste d policie s allow al l singl e mother s t o wor k somewha t less , bu t d o no t reduc e income a s a consequence, a s do means teste d policies. The availabilit y of childcare , accordin g t o on e pai r o f researchers , "dwarfe d th e su m of al l othe r publi c benefit s fo r children " i n Swede n an d similarl y i n France (180 ) .4 Not al l analyst s o f Swede n applau d thi s model . Davi d Popono e i s critical o f th e impac t o f welfar e stat e policie s o n two-paren t familie s (Popenoe 1988) . Althoug h muc h o f Swedis h polic y wa s designe d t o

145 / Policies for Single-Parent Families support families , Popeno e argue s tha t i t ha s ha d th e opposit e effect . At th e sam e time , h e doe s no t styl e himsel f a criti c o f th e Swedis h welfare state ; t o th e contrary , h e acknowledge s th e benefit s o f th e structure fo r mos t families : Though in some ways it may look like a battle between the welfar e state and the family, with the welfare stat e usually winning, I am not at all certain that in many respects, even if the family i s the loser, Swedes in general do not come out the winner. I am at this point only suggesting ways in which the very existence of the welfare stat e compromises the institution o f the family, an d not making any kind of political, much less moral,judgment o f the outcome. (Popenoe 1988, 238) The way s i n whic h Popeno e identifie s famil y declin e a s a resul t o f the welfar e stat e includ e educatio n an d healt h care , a s wel l a s chil d and elde r care . H e characterize s shrinkin g famil y responsibilit y a s decline. H e als o identifie s economi c equalit y a s underminin g famil y interdependency. Finally , h e see s stat e concern s w Tith efficienc y a s counter t o th e inheren t inefficiencie s o f families . We shoul d no t rea d to o muc h int o Popenoe' s comments ; instead , at most , hi s researc h i s a cautio n fo r clarit y i n ou r goal s an d fo r consideration o f alternativ e means . Wha t i s needed , then , i s a com mitment t o universa l famil y suppor t a s well a s qualit y childcar e an d housing. Th e economi c bas e mus t b e universal , a tax-base d fundin g rather tha n employer-base d funding . Thi s i s inextricably intertwine d with a recognition o f socia l responsibilit y an d socia l benefi t o f fami lies an d children , al l familie s an d al l children . The polic y goal s fo r single-paren t familie s ca n b e summarize d simply a s eliminatin g stigm a an d insurin g suppor t fo r al l children , regardless o f famil y form . Economi c need s ar e primary , an d a pre condition fo r othe r goals . Short-ter m reform s ca n alleviat e th e mos t glaring needs , but significant , serious , an d radica l chang e i s unavoid able if we mea n t o mak e a difference fo r children .

CHAPTER 7

Legal Strategies

What singl e parent s nee d i s a n en d t o stigma , an d suppor t fo r their children . Thi s require s ideologica l chang e a s wel l a s concret e economic an d socia l support . Existin g structure s d o har m t o single parent familie s b y stigmatizin g an d underminin g thes e families . Existing structure s d o harm mostl y b y wha t the y fail t o do ; it i s th e absence o f support , no t it s presenc e an d negativ e consequences , tha t results i n s o much harm . Law ha s th e potentia l t o pla y a rol e i n reorientin g polic y towar d single-parent families , an d i n th e proces s transfor m itsel f fro m a n agent o f oppressio n t o a guaranto r o f empowermen t an d equality . Law ca n b e a too l t o challeng e existin g structure s a s harmfu l t o single-parent families . La w coul d provid e powerfu l principle s t o frame an d justify affirmativ e suppor t fo r single-paren t families . A constitutiona l basi s fo r ideologica l an d practica l suppor t fo r single-parent familie s require s reexaminin g principle s o f pluralism , freedom, an d socia l responsibility . Wha t I sketc h her e i s ho w on e might reconceiv e constitutiona l doctrin e t o ideologically suppor t sin 146

147 / Legal Strategies gle-parent families , an d t o enshrin e tha t valu e s o strongl y tha t policies whic h stigmatiz e woul d b e constitutionall y invalid . Suc h a principle would no t b e inconsistent wit h continuin g t o favor a particular famil y form , bu t woul d no t permi t har m t o othe r form s per forming th e function s o f family . A mor e radica l perspectiv e woul d be t o challeng e th e legitimac y o f allowin g th e stat e t o elevat e an y particular famil y form , particularl y t o th e exten t i t ha s gender , rac e and clas s implications . Based o n existin g principle s an d doctrine , i t i s difficul t t o b e anything othe r tha n pessimisti c abou t th e law' s rol e i n changin g policy i n th e Unite d State s towar d single-paren t families . Constitu tional doctrine , a t best , migh t provid e th e basi s fo r inclusio n o f single-parent familie s withi n th e scop e o f protecte d famil y forms . Although entirel y absen t fro m th e explici t language o f the Constitu tion, th e protectio n an d valuin g o f famil y i s a venerate d constitu tional principle , recognize d a s a n implici t touchston e o f ou r politica l and socia l structure . Th e cor e o f thi s concep t o f famil y i s th e tradi tional two-paren t nuclea r marita l family . Othe r famil y form s hav e been recognized , bu t subordinate d t o tha t preferre d ideal . Th e Su preme Cour t ha s value d th e critica l rol e o f extende d family , a s wel l as th e contribution s o f foste r families . Th e Court' s suppor t o f th e rights o f unwed, single-paren t father s als o arguably implicitl y recog nizes th e structur e o f single-paren t families . Th e explici t inclusio n of single-paren t families , therefore , woul d no t b e a s a n equal , bu t rather a s a tolerate d alternativ e t o th e preferre d marita l two-paren t heterosexual nuclea r family . Rather tha n permittin g th e elevatio n o f on e kin d o f famil y t o justify stigm a o f all others, it could be argued that recognitio n o f a social unit a s a family, o f whateve r form , justifie s constitutiona l protectio n and heightene d constitutiona l scrutiny . Famil y i s a critica l structur e for individua l development , nurture , an d self-help . It is a primary, es sential socia l structur e tha t ha s dee p social , political , an d economi c consequences. Maximizing suppor t fo r familie s i s essential t o valuin g privacy, choice , an d toleratio n o f diversity . I t insurin g tha t th e mos t basic of opportunity structure s is equally supported with sufficient re sources t o safeguar d th e chanc e fo r persona l growt h an d socia l cohe sion. Base d o n tha t perspective , i t coul d b e argue d tha t an y law s o r policies with negative or harmful result s toward singl e parents shoul d be struck down a s violating liberty, equality, an d privacy interests .

1 4 8 / LA W REFOR M

But ca n w e ge t beyon d eliminatin g stigma ? Th e trick y par t o f restructuring polic y towar d singl e parent s i s identifyin g lega l ratio nales tha t g o beyond condemnin g existin g policie s t o a policy whic h would requir e affirmative , mandator y support . I f th e collectiv e polit ical wil l reorient s itsel f t o suppor t childre n withi n th e familie s the y find themselve s in , instea d o f mythologica l familie s tha t neve r were , then fundamenta l lega l concept s o f insurin g equality , whil e max imizing choic e an d privacy , coul d b e th e premis e fo r a massiv e reorientation o f policy . Bu t thos e principle s woul d no t require suc h support, a t leas t no t unde r existin g lega l interpretation s o f thei r meaning. Articulatin g a rational e tha t woul d mandat e suppor t o f all families , an d particularl y th e dependent s withi n families , woul d require a major reorientatio n o f fundamenta l lega l principles . Why i s th e la w s o limited ? Constitutiona l doctrin e woul d see m the natura l plac e t o groun d an d articulat e a n affirmative , pluralisti c view o f familie s an d th e protectio n o f children , an d defea t unsub stantiated stereotype s whic h affec t fundamenta l rights . Ye t existin g constitutional doctrin e no t onl y make s i t difficul t t o construc t a n argument tha t condemn s stigma , bu t als o render s i t nearl y impossi ble to construc t lega l entitlemen t t o stat e actio n o r support . One o f th e mor e seriou s hurdle s i s th e principl e tha t stat e actio n can b e challenge d bu t stat e inactio n cannot . Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s held tha t stat e authoritie s wh o mishandle d a chil d abus e cas e coul d not b e hel d accountabl e fo r th e child' s injuries , characterizin g th e state's role as one of inaction rathe r tha n o f constitutionally defectiv e action {DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services 1989) . Sinc e th e stat e wa s no t require d t o act , i t coul d no t b e held responsibl e fo r th e consequence s o f it s inaction . Thi s wa s de spite th e repeate d reports , investigations , an d monthl y visit s tha t exposed abus e ove r a two-year perio d prio r t o the brutal beating tha t left four-year-ol d Joshu a DeShane y severel y retarded . DeShaney ha s ha d a chillin g effec t o n effort s t o pro d state s t o live u p t o thei r responsibilitie s fo r protectin g citizen s fro m know n potential harms , includin g bot h chil d abus e an d othe r form s o f domestic violence. I t als o stand s a s a barrier t o effort s t o impose ne w obligations a s a matte r o f constitutiona l entitlemen t o r right . I t limits constitutiona l condemnatio n o f existin g polic y towar d single parent familie s i n tw o ways. First, the state' s complicit y in perpetuat ing th e negativ e consequence s fo r single-paren t familie s b y failin g

149 / Legal Strategies to provid e necessar y suppor t i s unreachable. Second , constructio n o f new suppor t policie s suc h a s famil y benefit s an d universa l childcar e is not constitutionall y mandated . Another significan t barrie r unde r existin g constitutiona l doctrin e is the law's view of state responsibility fo r poverty . Existing constitu tional treatmen t o f povert y ignore s wealt h distinction s an d recog nizes n o fundamenta l economi c entitlements , makin g i t difficul t t o argue fo r economi c redistributio n o r guarantee d minimu m suppor t (Cahn 1994) . I n a series o f opinion s regardin g entitlemen t t o educa tional opportunit y an d economi c benefits , th e Suprem e Cour t ha s consistently rejecte d th e vie w tha t wealt h distinction s o r limitation s on opportunitie s create d b y povert y trigge r heightene d o r stric t scrutiny o f th e state' s justifications fo r limitin g th e opportunitie s o f its citizens . The Cour t ha s als o hel d tha t althoug h educatio n i s a publi c re sponsibility, th e responsibilit y i s limite d t o providin g som e bar e minimum o f educationa l opportunit y (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 1973) . Equit y wit h respec t t o opportu nity doe s no t requir e tha t equivalen t resource s b e spen t fo r al l children. I n San Antonio, th e Cour t di d no t fin d i t constitutionall y offensive tha t th e schoo l financin g schem e range d fro m $2,00 0 pe r child i n poo r district s t o $19,00 0 pe r chil d i n ric h districts . Sinc e there wa s n o absolut e denia l o f education , th e Cour t reasoned , ther e was n o denia l o f a fundamental right . Whatever merit appellees' argument might have if a State's financin g system occasioned an absolute denial of educational opportunities to any of its children, that argument provides no basis for findin g a n interference wit h fundamental right s where only relative differences in spending levels are involved and where—as is true in the present case—no charge could be made that the system fails to provide each child with an opportunity t o acquire the basic minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment o f the rights of speech and of full participa tion in the political process. (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 1973, 37) This conclusio n totall y ignore s an y notio n o f equalit y o f opportu nity, a s wel l a s avoid s definin g wha t a meaningfu l educatio n shoul d be. I t als o refuse s t o lin k th e righ t t o equa l educatio n t o th e abilit y to tak e advantag e o f it . A t th e sam e time , th e Cour t refuse d t o vie w the financin g structur e a s one tha t distinguishe d o r discriminate d o n

1 5 0 / LA W REFOR M

the basi s o f wealth . Claimin g tha t th e definitio n o f thos e wh o ar e poor o r th e clas s t o b e evaluate d fo r purpose s o f equa l protectio n was no t wel l enoug h defined , th e Cour t the n conclude d tha t thi s "amorphous" clas s di d no t hav e an y o f th e standar d indici a o f sus pectness tha t woul d entitl e the m t o stric t scrutiny : "th e clas s i s no t saddled wit h suc h disabilities , o r subjecte d t o suc h a histor y o f purposeful unequa l treatment , o r relegate d t o suc h a positio n o f political powerlessness a s to command extraordinar y protectio n fro m the majoritaria n politica l process " (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 19J3, 28) . Funny, thos e criteri a rathe r perfectl y describe th e characteristic s o f th e poor . Constitutional treatmen t o f poverty , then , doe s no t requir e re dress o f significan t clas s differences , an d permit s toke n benefit s t o act a s a sufficien t minimum . Eve n i f som e leve l o f economi c suppor t were mandate d (itsel f unlikely) , minima l benefi t level s woul d b e unchallengeable. The Court' s jurisprudenc e o n welfar e i s eve n les s encouraging . While educatio n i s concede d t o b e a fundamenta l publi c responsibil ity, economi c suppor t i s not . Th e stat e i s no t require d t o provid e support fo r an y o f it s citizen s i n need . No r i s th e stat e require d t o provide reasonabl e benefits . Th e Cour t ha s adopte d a very lo w leve l of revie w o f government actio n with respec t t o social welfare classifi cations (Dandridge v. Williams 1970) . Rathe r tha n seein g th e provi sion o f benefit s necessar y t o basi c need s a s triggerin g th e highes t scrutiny, th e Cour t place d socia l welfare polic y i n th e sam e categor y as state regulatio n o f business. In cas e after case , the Cour t ha s take n the positio n tha t th e stat e i s free t o dispens e it s largess e largel y a s i t pleases, o r no t a t all . Because o f this , th e amoun t o f welfar e benefit s has gon e unchallenged , eve n whe n tha t amoun t i s fa r belo w wha t i s necessary t o overcom e th e otherwis e nearl y inevitabl e consequence s of povert y Th e stat e doe s no t hav e a n obligatio n t o provid e mean ingful o r dignifie d suppor t tha t enable s th e poo r t o achiev e self sufficiency. No r ar e the y entitle d t o suppor t t o enabl e the m t o d o nonwaged, essentia l wor k (lik e caregiving) . If th e stat e provide s support , however , i t gain s th e powe r t o intrude int o th e live s o f thos e familie s tha t i t "helps. " Stat e intru siveness wa s sanctione d i n Wyman, wher e th e Cour t uphel d denia l of benefit s t o a singl e paren t wh o refuse d t o permi t a secon d hom e visit subsequen t t o a n initia l visit , althoug h th e paren t wa s willin g

151 / Legal Strategies to provid e an y informatio n relevan t t o he r AFD C applicatio n (Wyman v. James 1971) . In tha t cas e the Cour t simpl y refuse d t o se e th e visit a s a searc h triggerin g Fourt h Amendmen t protections . Th e Court therefor e evaluate d th e state' s actio n unde r a reasonablenes s standard an d foun d th e visi t entirel y reasonable . Th e Court' s posi tion ha s permitte d significan t regulatio n o f welfar e recipient s t o g o constitutionally unchallenge d (William s 1992) . Finally, constitutiona l analysi s thu s fa r ha s seeme d t o permi t discriminatory, stigmatizin g treatmen t o f singl e parent s an d thei r children base d o n immorality , sexua l misconduct , an d poo r rol e modeling. When th e individual i s the focu s o f constitutional concern , it i s al l to o eas y fo r th e stat e t o justif y increase d regulation s an d supervision o f motherin g b y actin g i n it s protectiv e capacit y fo r th e child agains t th e mother . A s note d above , thi s concer n i s th e basi s for interventio n i n th e contex t o f Ai d Fo r Familie s wit h Dependen t Children [Wytnan v. James 1971). 1 Constitutional notion s o f privacy , for example , d o no t protec t a woman' s refusa l t o participat e i n a demeaning paternit y proceedin g i n whic h sexua l histor y i s th e cen tral focu s [Allen v. Eichler 1990). 2 More sympatheti c treatmen t o f illegitimat e children , a s wel l a s protection o f reproductiv e rights , an d decision s regardin g marriag e and famil y woul d see m t o b e principle s tha t migh t provid e suppor t for singl e parents . Bu t suc h alternativ e ground s fo r suppor t als o seem limite d unde r curren t doctrine . Unde r reproductiv e right s doc trine, i f yo u protec t th e righ t t o choose , i t seem s logica l t o assum e that th e famil y yo u choos e t o creat e shoul d b e protecte d a s well. Yet the Cour t ha s consistentl y hel d tha t a s justificatio n fo r regulation s designed t o discourag e abortion , th e stat e ca n ac t i n suppor t o f particular famil y forms. 3 Similarly , althoug h th e Cour t ha s con demned lega l structure s whic h punis h nonmarita l childre n fo r th e "sins" o f thei r parents , i t ha s no t provide d independen t statu s an d entitlements t o childre n irrespectiv e o f parenta l status . Th e Court' s doctrine wit h respec t t o illegitimat e childre n ha s draw n a wavering , uncertain lin e wit h respec t t o thei r status . B y n o mean s i s the statu s legally insignificant . Rather , th e Cour t ha s wavere d bac k an d fort h between th e vie w tha t childre n shoul d no t b e marke d b y a stigm a beyond thei r contro l an d unrelate d t o thei r abilities , an d th e vie w that th e stat e shoul d b e entitle d t o uphol d th e preferre d for m o f childbearing, withi n marriage , wit h hars h result s t o th e childre n

1 5 2 / LA W REFOR M

born outsid e o f marriage . Ironicall y (o r perhaps no t so) , the practica l consequences o f th e illegitimac y case s ar e t o den y childre n certai n forms o f economi c suppor t fro m thei r fathers , particularl y inheri tance suppor t (an d theoreticall y fro m thei r mother s a s well , bu t fathers ar e the dominan t actor s in the cases) . Connecting illegitimac y to economi c sanction s i s reminiscent o f recen t welfar e reform . Against thi s backdrop , ther e ar e tw o alternativ e strategies . On e i s to wor k withi n existin g doctrin e an d it s limitation s an d t o focu s o n shifting th e politica l consensu s o n single-paren t families . Alterna tively, b y re-imaginin g an d rethinkin g doctrine , an d i n som e in stances by challengin g establishe d doctrine , th e lega l structur e migh t be proactiv e i n reorientin g policy . I n th e balanc e o f thi s chapte r I explore alternat e way s t o us e bot h o f thes e strategies . First, focusin g o n th e definitio n o f family , th e goa l i s t o entitl e single-parent familie s t o th e sam e o r simila r benefit s a s thos e af forded t o two-paren t marita l families . Th e mor e conservativ e strat egy t o accomplis h thi s woul d b e simpl y t o includ e single-paren t families a s value d familie s withi n th e definitio n o f "family/ ' whil e still acknowledgin g th e legitimac y o f th e preferenc e fo r th e two parent marita l family . Th e mor e radica l pat h woul d challeng e th e preference. Even wit h a reformulate d definitio n o f family , th e victor y woul d be more ideologica l tha n real . In orde r t o expand substantiv e suppor t and t o mandat e a minimum threshol d o f support , w e woul d nee d t o rethink ou r conceptio n o f the relationship s o f familie s t o communit y and t o th e state . Thi s secon d strateg y woul d focu s o n insurin g equa l opportunity fo r childre n a s wel l a s translatin g a socia l commitmen t and responsibilit y fo r childre n int o action . I t woul d focu s o n princi ples o f rac e an d gende r equalit y fo r familie s an d children , a s well a s using th e emergin g principle s o f children' s rights , t o requir e a re envisioned relationshi p betwee n childre n an d th e community .

DEFINING FAMIL Y Inclusion and

Equality

Whenever I hav e taugh t a cours e o r semina r o n famil y law , I hav e asked th e student s t o defin e "family/ ' Th e mos t commo n answer s

153 / Legal Strategies are emotionall y defined : famil y ar e th e peopl e wh o lov e yo u an d whom yo u love . Lov e i s th e basi s fo r emotional , physical , an d eco nomic care. It is an emotiona l commitmen t tha t transcend s particula r circumstances. I t ha s a permanency tha t transcend s othe r clos e emo tional associations , lik e friendshi p o r marriage . Th e permanenc y is roote d no t i n forma l commitment s bu t rathe r i n intertwine d relationships o f dependency . M y student s als o commonl y visualiz e and depic t famil y no t a s singula r bu t a s plural : no t a s famil y bu t a s families. Finally , whil e th e conten t o f th e emotiona l o r psychologica l bond i s ofte n difficul t fo r th e student s t o defin e mor e precisel y (indeed the y ofte n resis t suc h definition) , the y al l ar e clea r abou t which relationship s qualify . The y hav e n o difficult y knowin g wh o their famil y is . Thi s strongl y suggest s tha t w e shoul d simpl y le t individuals defin e family . T o the exten t tha t i t is necessary t o identif y one famil y a s primary, w e shoul d als o trus t th e abilit y o f individual s to d o so. Interestingly, th e student s commonl y remar k tha t thei r defini tions ar e differen t fro m "legal " definition s o f family . Th e conven tional lega l definition s encompas s individual s wit h who m ther e i s a relationship o f blood , marriage , o r adoption . Th e marriag e relation ship an d marita l famil y ar e value d abov e al l other s a s th e preferre d family structure . The conventiona l lega l definitio n ha s th e benefi t o f th e eas e o f determining familia l relationships . Famil y i s define d b y bright-lin e concepts: blood , marriage , and/o r adoption . Bu t a t w^ia t cost ? Th e cost i s to ignore, stigmatize , o r devalu e tha t whic h doe s no t easil y fi t into conventiona l o r preferre d molds . Th e traditiona l definitio n als o tends t o focu s awa y fro m th e way s i n whic h thes e "objective " cate gories ar e culturall y an d legall y constructed . Marriage , fo r example , is limite d t o heterosexua l couples . Adoptio n i s totall y a creatur e o f the law , constructe d t o terminat e th e familia l tie s o f th e chil d an d birthparents, an d replac e the m wit h a secon d se t o f familia l tie s based purel y o n emotiona l tie s give n lega l sanction . Eve n blood , o r genetics, ca n b e overcom e b y intentio n an d commitment , a s i n th e case o f surrogacy . Throug h conventiona l definition s w e mis s th e point; tha t thes e ar e signifier s o f emotions , bu t the y ar e no t them selves constitutiv e o f "family. " The y ar e outwar d sign s o f presume d or potentia l feelin g an d relationship , bu t i t i s th e feelin g tha t the y memorialize, no t th e formalit y o f contractua l commitment . Rela -

154 /

L A W

REFOR M

tionships o f bloo d an d adoptio n i n particular , viewe d fro m th e per spective o f children , no t adults , ar e relationship s o f feelin g an d connection. The y ar e not , a s som e hav e pointe d out , relationship s of ownershi p an d possessio n (Fitzgeral d 1995) . Th e valu e o f a n emotionally oriente d definition , define d fro m th e perspectiv e o f th e individual wh o identifie s he r family , i s tha t i t reflect s he r live d experience o f family . I t empower s individual s t o defin e famil y fo r themselves rathe r tha n havin g thei r realit y name d an d constructe d by a n arbitrar y lega l structure . There i s som e suppor t fo r a n emotiona l definitio n an d fo r a definition tha t honor s individua l choic e i n constitutiona l jurispru dence. The Suprem e Court , whil e statin g tha t marriag e i s the "basi c foundation o f th e family " (Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform 1977 , 843) , nevertheles s ha s recognize d "the importanc e o f th e familia l relationship , t o th e individual s in volved an d t o the society , stem s fro m th e emotiona l attachment s tha t derive fro m th e intimac y o f dail y association , an d fro m th e rol e i t plays in 'promotin g a way o f life ' " (844) . This notio n o f psychologi cal family remove s th e focu s fro m statu s o r for m an d focuse s instea d on th e natur e an d meanin g o f th e relationship , a functiona l plu s emotional/psychological approach . I don't thin k ther e i s any seriou s doub t tha t single-paren t familie s are families . The y fi t withi n th e Court' s acknowledgmen t o f familie s outside o f marita l families . Th e questio n is , rather , whethe r the y should b e include d withi n th e circl e o f preferre d families , meanin g the circl e o f familie s entitle d t o socia l an d politica l suppor t becaus e they serv e broader socia l goals a s well a s individual needs . By eve n ver y traditiona l definition s o f families , single-paren t families ar e entitle d t o belong . I n som e respect s tha t i s wha t I hav e argued: single-paren t familie s ar e a s goo d a s an y othe r kin d o f family. I have also argued tha t w e implicitly suppor t singl e parentin g within th e two-paren t family ; tha t is , ou r dominan t mode l i s o f a sole or primary nurturin g parent . S o if we are supportive o f families , we shoul d b e supportiv e o f single-paren t families . Inclusio n o f singl e parents a s par t o f th e definitio n o f "family " i s a strateg y consisten t with effort s b y famil y la w scholar s t o rethin k an d redefin e concept s of famil y an d paren t t o be more inclusiv e an d diverse , an d t o groun d the definitio n les s i n for m an d structur e tha n i n relationship , func tion, an d emotion . Thi s replace s traditiona l definition s o f famil y b y

155 / Legal Strategies relationship status . Instead th e ne w definitio n focuse s o n wha t fami lies do , looking t o functio n an d connection s bot h withi n an d beyon d households. To the exten t tha t w e suppor t two-paren t families , single-paren t families ar e entitle d t o th e sam e support , wher e sam e suppor t mean s equality o f result . B y requirin g inclusio n and suppor t (wit h suppor t defined no t a s th e sam e resource s bu t rathe r a s resource s ampl e enough t o achiev e th e sam e results) , w e insur e tha t singl e parent s are supporte d t o the sam e exten t a s two-parent families . The dange r i n thi s strateg y i s tha t someon e define s function . Those wh o hav e th e greates t powe r t o defin e may , b y thi s means , exclude familie s wh o fai l t o confor m t o particula r socia l norms . Fo r example, a single-paren t famil y migh t b e include d withi n th e circl e of famil y a s lon g a s i t act s lik e a two-paren t marita l family , b y th e use o f substitute s o r stand-in s fo r th e "missing " parent , wit h du e regard t o a bottom lin e o f heterosexuality . Singl e parent s wit h step parents o r de facto stepparents , o r singl e parent s i n a stron g copar enting relationshi p wit h a n ex-spous e o r partne r woul d qualif y a s families; singl e parent s withou t a n opposite-se x paren t o r paren t stand-in woul d not . Unde r thi s view , i f functio n i s s o defined , th e liberating ac t o f inclusio n woul d b e defeate d b y a rigid nor m o f ho w one mus t ac t onc e par t o f th e privilege d group . Th e nor m o f th e two-parent marita l heterosexua l nuclea r famil y dominate s i f th e reason t o includ e othe r famil y form s i s tha t the y ca n d o th e sam e things a s well as that typ e o f family . Wha t i s excluded ar e difference s that enric h an d expan d ou r understandin g o f famil y function , suc h as th e difference s an d teaching s base d o n th e wa y single-paren t families function . Defining famil y primaril y i n term s o f emotiona l relationships , reflected i n th e individual' s namin g o f hi s o r he r family , i s th e wa y out o f thi s conundrum . Defin e famil y b y who m w e would includ e i n our pictur e o f family . Thi s definitio n resonate s wit h ou r lif e experi ences an d permits th e greates t rang e o f persona l choice . Protected b y the traditiona l reverenc e fo r privat e choice s whic h reache s it s ape x when valuin g choice s abou t intimat e relationships , a n emotiona l definition o f famil y honor s individualit y withou t imposin g an y indi vidual definition o n the community . Th e focus i s not o n functio n bu t rather o n relationship , o n th e natur e o f th e emotiona l tie s tha t bin d those w e cal l "family. " Th e definitio n accord s wit h ho w w e defin e

1 5 6 / LA W REFOR M

family fo r ourselve s an d ho w w e kno w family , despit e prevailin g ideology o r lega l definitions . A redefinitio n o f famil y aroun d emotional , relationa l meaning s and awa y fro m structur e woul d mov e u s awa y fro m th e temptin g use o f structur e o r lega l formalitie s suc h a s adoptio n an d marriag e as bright-line definition s o f family . B y focusin g awa y fro m function , such a definitio n migh t avoi d th e difficultie s o f reincorporatin g a particular famil y mode l throug h insistenc e tha t familie s mus t al l perform i n particular ways . It might, then , bette r reflec t th e pluralis tic, comple x experienc e o f familie s i n people' s lives . Th e inclu siveness o f thi s definition , a s wel l a s a rejectio n o f an y preferre d family form , woul d bette r valu e al l families . No on e definitio n o f family , however , ma y provid e a universa l answer t o al l th e difficul t question s face d b y families , o r determin e the relativ e responsibilitie s an d right s o f famil y member s t o eac h other an d t o th e state . A relational , emotiona l definition , fo r exam ple, doe s no t provid e a n instan t guid e fo r resolvin g intrafamilia l disputes o r fo r allocatin g responsibilitie s betwee n individual s an d society. I d o no t mea n t o sugges t a redefinitio n insure s simplicit y and universality . Rather , I sugges t i t a s a mean s t o reflec t ou r experience o f famil y i n orde r t o mov e beyon d definition s whic h unnecessarily exclud e o r subordinate , o r privileg e a preferred norm . We nee d flexibilit y whic h depend s upo n th e purpos e fo r whic h w e use th e definition . B y reorientin g th e overal l concep t o f famil y toward relational , emotiona l ties , I mean t o insure al l families recog nition an d support . La w ha s commonl y encompasse d a rang e o f definitions subsume d unde r a general understandin g o f wha t consti tutes a family . I t i s tha t genera l understandin g tha t w e nee d t o reorient, whil e acknowledgin g th e nee d fo r mor e particula r defini tions t o resolv e right s an d responsibilities . W e coul d begin b y recog nizing an d honorin g th e socia l cor e relationship s o f al l our families . Challenging Family

Privilege

A second , mor e radica l strateg y o f redefinitio n o f "family " woul d challenge th e priorit y give n t o two-paren t marita l familie s a s un justified, irrational , an d a n inequalitaria n preferenc e tha t offend s freedom o f though t an d association , pluralis m an d tolerance , equal ity an d du e process , an d privacy . I n th e alternative , i f th e priorit y o f

157 / Legal Strategies two-parent marita l familie s i s lef t untouche d o r justified, on e coul d challenge th e relationshi p betwee n th e mos t highl y value d famil y and al l othe r families . Hono r o r privileg e nee d no t b e couple d wit h stigma fo r al l others . Instead , a "firs t amon g equals' ' mode l coul d b e adopted, rathe r tha n a mode l tha t require s a put-dow n o f al l othe r forms o f family . Challenging th e primac y o f an y famil y for m i s a n eve n mor e radical approach . Curren t constitutiona l doctrin e permit s an d eve n encourages th e stat e t o suppor t a particula r for m o r definitio n o f family, thereb y frustratin g effort s t o recogniz e th e valu e o f divers e families. Marth a Mino w ha s explore d whethe r Firs t Amendmen t doctrine coul d b e use d t o suppor t famil y diversit y unde r a "fre e exercise of families" argumen t (Mino w 1991) . Under thi s view singl e parents woul d benefi t fro m recognitio n o f th e diversit y o f familie s and toleratio n o f nontraditiona l families , aki n t o th e free exercis e o f religion. Mino w acknowledge s th e seriou s limitation s o f thi s analy sis, i n particula r tha t "i n th e absenc e o f a guarantee agains t govern mental establishmen t o f preferre d famil y forms , a s i s presen t i n th e field o f religiou s freedom , free exercis e analysi s i s quit e limited " (Minow 1991) . Bu t i f w e conced e tha t th e governmen t i s entitle d t o identify an d suppor t preferre d famil y forms , the n mer e toleratio n o f some diversit y fro m tha t preferre d for m i s no t muc h freedo m an d virtually n o meaningfu l support . The argumen t fo r displacin g th e state' s glorificatio n o f a single family for m ha s severa l aspects . First, everythin g w e know abou t th e function o f famil y show s tha t i t ha s littl e t o d o with form . Emphasi s on form , therefore , i s irrational . Second , elevatio n o f a particula r form offend s freedo m o f though t an d freedo m o f association . Th e structuring o f family , o f th e intimat e association s o f partner s an d children, i s somethin g tha t w e recogniz e a s th e expressio n o f th e most fundamenta l o f huma n freedoms . Privilegin g on e kin d o f fam ily offend s ou r suppor t o f th e abilit y o f individual s t o maximiz e their fre e choice s a s lon g a s the y d o n o har m t o other s withi n o r without thei r family . The elevatio n o f th e nuclea r marita l famil y als o reinforce s a lon g legal traditio n supportin g patriarchy . I d o no t mea n t o sugges t tha t the two-paren t famil y canno t exis t apar t fro m a patriarcha l form . Nevertheless, we are far fro m a marital famil y tha t i s nonpatriarchal . Under th e thi n venee r o f equalit y languag e i n famil y an d wor k law ,

1 5 8 / LA W REFOR M

the realitie s perpetuat e inegalitaria n result s tha t replicat e patriarchy . It seem s fa r mor e rationa l t o bring th e nuclea r famil y dow n fro m it s pedestal an d encourag e othe r famil y form s an d role s i n orde r t o achieve, i f possible , a nonpatriarcha l marita l family . Th e continue d elevation o f thi s famil y form , i n th e absenc e o f significan t suppor t for egalitaria n realities , seem s instea d t o hav e gotte n u s onl y t o a modified, o r reconstituted , patriarchy . Whe n I as k m y student s i f they ca n imagin e a marita l famil y wher e on e spous e stay s a t hom e to nurtur e childre n an d d o househol d wor k with suc h a n arrange ment no t creatin g an imbalance i n power an d economics, they canno t imagine it . Face d with th e realitie s o f gende r imbalance , the y canno t imagine ho w t o reconstruc t interdependenc y s o tha t i t doe s no t require no r i s it viewed a s hierarchy . Finally, ther e i s a rac e componen t t o thi s argumen t agains t privi leging th e nuclear , marita l family . Base d bot h o n historica l discrimi nation an d curren t famil y structures , Africa n American s i n particu lar hav e bee n prohibite d o r dissuade d fro m marrying , an d currentl y are economicall y discourage d fro m marrying . An y lega l structur e that privilege s nuclea r marita l familie s ha s a disproportionat e racia l impact. Tha t resul t alon e shoul d disentitl e th e stat e fro m elevatin g that famil y for m abov e others . A direc t assaul t o n th e abilit y o f th e stat e t o privileg e any famil y form ove r al l others is not, then , doome d t o failure. I f such an assual t were t o prevail , i t migh t entitl e othe r kind s o f families , includin g single-parent families , t o th e benefit s an d privilege s accorde d t o marital families . A less radical approach woul d be to argue tha t whil e th e stat e ma y privilege a particula r for m o f family , i t canno t stigmatiz e al l others . To stigmatiz e famil y for m i s irrational , agai n becaus e i t i s s o clea r that for m doe s no t determin e th e abilit y t o functio n a s a family , i n the mos t positiv e sens e o f functioning . Ther e ma y b e a n analog y i n freedom o f religio n doctrin e t o thi s "firs t amon g equals " principle . Despite th e fundamenta l precept s o f toleranc e fo r al l religiou s prac tices, w e nevertheles s permi t th e privilegin g o f Judeo-Christia n tra ditions i n holidays , a s wel l a s i n wor k an d schoo l schedules . Bu t First Amendmen t doctrin e woul d no t permi t th e stigmatizin g o f al l religions othe r tha n Judeo-Christia n sects . I f thi s approac h wer e followed wit h respec t t o families , i t would permi t th e stat e t o favo r a particular for m o f famil y bu t no t permi t a s a corollar y th e denigra tion, b y polic y o r effect s o f policy, o f othe r form s o f families .

159 / Legal Strategies What i s most importan t abou t a strategy o f inclusion i s to connec t the viabilit y an d suppor t o f a wid e rang e o f famil y form s t o th e construction o f a famil y suppor t policy . A s w e envisio n a famil y support policy , we must decid e whether single-paren t familie s woul d be best serve d b y inclusive famil y suppor t policie s o r policies specifi cally create d t o dea l wit h th e particula r issue s o f single-paren t fami lies. A policy o f inclusion rathe r tha n on e of distinctio n i s preferable , but onl y i f single-paren t familie s ar e explicitl y considered , i n a nonstigmatizing way , i n polic y making . Inclusio n shoul d no t mea n invisibility bu t rathe r validatio n o f th e variet y o f famil y form s tha t function a s family, wit h a generous definitio n o f function .

FAMILY S U P P O R T The Problem of

Inadequacy

Regardless o f whethe r curren t definition s o f famil y ca n includ e single parent s o r i f th e definitio n need s t o b e restructured , inclusio n of singl e parents withi n th e definitio n o f famil y i s a limited strategy . The outcom e i n term s o f concret e suppor t ma y b e littl e mor e tha n symbolic. Th e suppor t o f two-paren t familie s i s sorel y inadequate . Inclusion o f single-paren t families , then , withi n a structur e tha t inadequately serve s two-paren t familie s ma y achiev e ideologica l change, bu t littl e i n th e wa y o f rea l benefits . Eve n i f benefit s ar e structured t o insur e tha t the y provid e simila r consequences , b y tak ing int o accoun t difference s betwee n single-paren t an d two-paren t families, thos e consequence s wil l nevertheless b e no better tha n the y are fo r two-paren t families . Support o f certai n familie s i s accepte d an d justified a s appropriat e public suppor t o f a critica l privat e socia l structur e whic h benefit s society a s a whole . Whil e som e familie s ar e bette r supported , none , save th e ver y rich , ar e adequatel y supported . Thi s i s particularly th e case with respec t t o the crucial allocatio n o f time an d energy betwee n work an d famil y responsibilities . The primar y suppor t o f two-paren t familie s i s through suppor t o f marriage. Marriag e o f cours e i s a n imperfec t prox y i n som e respect s for th e two-paren t family , becaus e som e couple s wh o hav e childre n do no t marry , an d som e marrie d couple s d o no t hav e children . Nevertheless, i t i s clear tha t th e stron g lega l preferenc e fo r marriag e

l 6 o / LA W REFOR M

signifies suppor t fo r th e traditiona l family . Th e dominan t purpos e o f the intimat e relationshi p protecte d an d valued b y marriag e i s to bea r and rais e children . Th e structur e o f th e relationshi p presume s th e traditional family , define d a s a famil y i n whic h ther e ar e dependen t children an d in which mother s an d father s hav e gender-specifi c roles , the breadwinne r fathe r an d th e homemake r mother . Wome n i n par ticular use d t o b e viewe d a s incomplete , imperfectl y developed , un less the y marrie d an d ha d children . Suppor t o f marriag e i s therefor e equivalent t o suppor t o f th e family , define d a s the traditiona l family . One o f th e commo n myth s abou t th e traditiona l famil y i s tha t i t operates independentl y an d self-sufficiently . Stephani e Coont z ha s detailed th e historica l recor d o f famil y suppor t tha t flatl y contradict s this commo n belie f (Coont z 1992) . A s sh e point s out , th e 195 0 suburban (implicitl y white ) famil y especiall y idealize d a s self-suffi cient wa s highl y dependen t o n governmen t support . Th e suburba n family wa s subsidized b y the benefits o f the G I bill, providing educa tional benefits t o primarily mal e war veterans ; by housin g loan s tha t enabled familie s t o ow n thei r ow n homes ; an d b y governmen t sup port o f privat e industr y t o provid e job s an d th e buildin g o f th e infrastructure t o suppor t privat e development . Thi s massiv e publi c support name d an d rationalize d i n differen t program s fa r exceede d any suppor t the n o r sinc e under th e rubri c o f welfare, yet , a s Coont z points out , n o on e eve r feare d tha t thi s dependenc y woul d generat e negative socia l consequence s (Coont z 1992 , 68-92) . Marriage an d famil y continu e t o b e intertwine d i n contemporar y law. " Family" i s a significan t categor y unde r federa l an d stat e law : by on e researcher' s count , th e ter m alon e appear s ove r 2,00 0 time s in th e federa l code , an d fro m 2,00 0 t o 4,00 0 time s i n tw o states ' statutes (Robso n 1994 , 980). The definitio n o f family , an d the prefer ence for th e two-paren t marita l family , i s used t o distribute resource s including financia l support , fring e benefits , ta x breaks , an d housing . Marital statu s i s critica l t o socia l security , worker' s compensatio n benefits, intestat e successio n law , adoption , an d th e us e o f reproduc tive technologie s (Jaf f 1988) . The protectio n o f marita l statu s i s als o apparent i n law s criminalizin g cohabitation , adultery , an d distin guishing th e childre n bor n t o parent s wh o ar e no t marrie d a s "no t lawful" o r illegitimate . Perhaps th e stronges t suppor t o f th e traditiona l nuclea r famil y i s the ta x code . Drafte d i n th e earl y par t o f thi s centur y whe n gende r

161 / Legal Strategies roles reflecte d th e accepte d idea l o f mal e breadwinner s an d femal e homemakers, th e cod e continue s t o b e mos t strongl y supportiv e o f that famil y pattern . I t thu s strongl y disadvantage s th e tw o wage earner family , b y heavil y taxin g th e secon d wag e earner , a s wel l a s disadvantaging th e single-paren t famil y becaus e househol d labo r continues t o b e ignore d (no t taxed , therefor e no t valued , an d no t part o f th e basi s fo r socia l securit y benefits ) a t th e sam e tim e tha t income decline s (McCaffer y 1993b , 617). 4 Despite th e significan t suppor t provide d fo r th e preferre d two parent family , tha t suppor t nevertheles s ha s been provide d withi n a n ideology o f famil y privacy , famil y self-sufficiency , an d th e elevatio n of th e valu e o f wor k ove r famil y Despit e a mytholog y o f car e fo r children an d family , th e lega l suppor t structur e a s wel l a s th e socia l support structure , i s nearly nonexistent . Compare d i n particular wit h other postindustria l economies , th e Unite d State s lack s th e famil y support structure s essentia l t o long-ter m economi c an d socia l sup port o f families . Parentin g remain s a privat e responsibilit y carrie d out a s bes t a s possibl e unde r workplac e structure s whic h largel y ignore parenta l responsibilit y an d a t wors t impos e disciplin e o r dis charge fo r eve n th e mos t ordinar y an d commo n o f parenta l crises : parental leave , childcare , car e fo r ordinar y illnesse s an d extraordi nary healt h conditions , afterschoo l care , leav e t o atten d conference s and performances , coordinatio n o f wor k an d schoo l schedules . Th e needs o f tim e an d spac e ar e significant , an d th e consequence s o f continuing conflic t ar e evident . We operate d a generatio n ag o wit h th e myt h tha t i n th e idea l family, on e parent woul d sta y a t hom e an d provid e th e parentin g fo r children, whil e a secon d paren t woul d provid e famil y income . Thi s ideal worke d wel l fo r th e workplace , becaus e i t provide d a worke r whose famil y responsibilitie s insure d commitmen t t o th e workplace . It worke d wel l fo r th e home , i t wa s believed , becaus e i t insure d full time parenting . I t wa s clea r tha t mother s di d caregivin g an d father s did breadwinning . Although w e have shifte d awa y fro m thi s model , w e hav e no t ye t articulated a n alternativ e model . Ou r notion s o f equalit y n o longe r allow fo r presume d gender-base d assignmen t o f famil y roles , nor fo r the limitatio n o f workplac e opportunities . Nevertheless , w e continu e to operat e i n a syste m structure d o n th e assumptio n o f a singl e nurturing paren t a t home , an d a workplace paren t largel y limite d t o

l62/

LA W REFOR M

workers engage d i n onl y economi c parenting . Ther e ha s bee n n o major restructurin g o f th e workplace , an d n o significan t alleviatio n of conflic t betwee n wor k an d family . Moreover , thi s conflic t i s exac erbated b y escalatin g economi c needs . Incorporating single-paren t familie s int o th e existin g structur e o f family suppor t woul d b e a step forward , becaus e i t would potentiall y eliminate som e o f th e ideologica l stigm a an d migh t increas e eco nomic resource s t o thos e families . Mor e support , eve n incrementa l support, i s bette r tha n n o suppor t an d negativ e stigma . Inclusio n into a limite d an d inadequat e structur e o f famil y support , however , is not a solution. Jus t a s the enactmen t o f a n unfunded , time-limite d Family Leav e Ac t coverin g onl y 5 0 percen t o f th e workforc e ha d little impac t o n th e abilit y o f familie s t o bon d wit h newbor n o r newly adopte d children , t o car e fo r seriousl y il l childre n o r othe r family members , o r t o ten d t o their ow n debilitatin g illnesses , s o to o a theoretica l expansio n o f ou r definitio n o f famil y an d inclusio n o f single parent s withi n existin g suppor t structure s i s littl e mor e tha n a token , symboli c ste p wit h little , rea l meanin g fo r mos t single parent families . Reconfiguring the and Community

Relationship between

Family

In orde r t o provid e rea l chang e i n th e materia l circumstance s o f single-parent families , w e mus t reconceptualiz e th e relationshi p be tween famil y an d community . Ou r individualistic , privatize d vie w of family preclude s a collective , communa l responsibilit y fo r children . There i s littl e sens e o f socia l responsibilit y fo r childre n othe r tha n one's own , an d n o mandat e fo r rea l equalit y o f opportunity . Parent s are hel d responsibl e fo r thei r children , an d w e fai l sociall y o r politi cally t o insur e tha t parent s hav e th e resources , an d childre n th e opportunities, tha t woul d suppor t suc h a privatized vie w and mak e i t work fo r th e benefi t o f individual s an d society . Parent s lac k th e wherewithal; the y nevertheles s ar e blamed. I t i s a vicious cycle . How d o yo u mak e al l childre n everyone' s children ? I f yo u can , then assurin g benefits , redistributin g income , insurin g educationa l and othe r equality , i s a relatively eas y ste p t o take . There ar e severa l aspects t o this . On e i s redistributive , tha t i s bein g willin g t o shif t resources t o accommodat e needs . Tha t willingnes s shoul d no t b e

163 / Legal Strategies blocked b y th e structur e o f famil y withi n whic h childre n resid e i f the premise s fo r stigmatizin g single-paren t familie s ar e false . Th e second i s reconceivin g responsibilit y fo r childre n fro m exclusiv e family responsibilit y t o communit y o r socia l responsibilit y Al though w e i n fac t provid e significan t suppor t t o certai n families , th e view tha t ideall y familie s shoul d b e self-supportin g a s wel l a s self regulating i s ver y deepl y ingrained . I t i s th e basi s fo r arguin g tha t no famil y o r n o chil d withi n a famil y ha s a clai m t o resource s fro m society a s a whole, bu t rathe r only , perhaps , fro m thei r ow n family . On th e othe r hand , a reoriente d concep t o f socia l responsibilit y would includ e suppor t fo r family , i n th e sens e o f insurin g sufficien t resources o f time and money fo r th e famil y t o best serv e its function , as well a s understanding th e socia l or communa l rol e a s one o f activ e nurture an d suppor t o f children . The importanc e o f communit y fo r familie s an d th e individual s within familie s migh t sugges t som e accor d wit h communitarianism . This i s tru e i n th e sens e tha t communitarian s critiqu e an d balanc e the notio n o f autonomou s individualis m (Mulhal l an d Swif t 1992) . The responsibilit y fo r familie s shoul d b e social, not solel y individual . But th e troublin g par t abou t communitarianis m i s th e questio n o f who define s an d control s th e community , wh o establishe s values , who define s morality , an d wh o control s power ? A t leas t som e com munitarians see th e two-paren t marita l famil y a s on e o f th e prim e structural premise s o f their re-visione d societ y (Etzion i 1993 ; Anderson an d Dave y 1995 ; Coontz 1995) . Even if on e coul d successfull y disput e th e communitaria n fixatio n with traditiona l families , i t i s the understandin g o f th e dynami c an d of th e plac e o f disadvantaged , stigmatize d group s tha t i s mos t trou bling abou t th e theory . Thi s i s no t t o sa y tha t ther e ar e no t thos e within communitaria n school s wh o ar e concerne d abou t pluralis m and th e right s o f minorities . Th e reconfiguratio n o f famil y an d community whic h I fin d mor e persuasiv e i s closes t t o wha t Aden o Addis has calle d "critica l pluralism" i n th e contex t o f right s o f ethni c minorities (Addi s 1991,1225 ; Brown-Scott 1994 ; Ward 1994) . Unde r that model , disadvantage d subgroup s ar e provided resource s i n orde r to flourish , a s well a s the opportunit y an d institutiona l structure s t o be a dialogu e partne r wit h th e majorit y culture . Multiculturalism , either alon e o r i n combinatio n wit h communitarianism , migh t ye t provide model s fo r famil y diversit y (Taylo r 1994 ; Walze r 1983 ;

1 6 4 / LA W REFOR M

Kymlicka 1995) . Th e combinatio n o f cultural , racial , an d gende r issues complicates the issues of community fo r single-paren t familie s (Wolf, 1994) . What i s require d i s a reorientatio n o f th e state' s relationshi p t o families. Th e basi c principle s fo r tha t reorientatio n ca n b e foun d i n concepts o f equalit y an d children' s rights . Equality and

Children's Rights

Support fo r single-paren t familie s ca n b e argue d o n th e basi s o f equality principle s grounde d i n thinkin g abou t familie s fro m gende r and rac e perspectives . Simpl y put , th e argumen t i s tha t privilegin g a famil y for m tha t disproportionatel y value s th e majorit y famil y structure o f whit e American s ove r th e famil y structur e mos t com mon amon g Africa n America n an d Hispani c familie s constitute s race-based discrimination . Th e combinatio n o f th e star k differentia l in th e presenc e o f single-paren t familie s withi n whit e an d nonwhit e communities, i n additio n t o the consequence s o f single-paren t status , should b e th e basi s fo r a n argumen t tha t an y lega l principl e whic h deliberately discriminate s eithe r i n favo r o f a particular famil y for m or stigmatize s nonpreferre d famil y form s shoul d b e subjecte d t o strict scrutiny . Give n th e lac k o f eve n rationa l suppor t fo r preferrin g particular famil y forms , an d becaus e for m doe s no t contro l o r deter mine outcomes , suc h a n analysi s woul d likel y b e fata l t o an y polic y seeking t o privileg e two-paren t familie s a t th e expens e o f single parent families . Th e affirmativ e principle s woul d b e th e suppor t o f equality an d diversity . There i s a gende r componen t t o th e equalit y argumen t a s well . Economic policie s o r practice s whic h disadvantag e singl e parent s disproportionately disadvantag e women , particularl y wit h respec t t o economic benefit s o r support . Furthermore , thos e policie s whic h reinforce parentin g a s an economi c rol e disproportionatel y disadvan tage men , wh o ar e treate d a s i f the y hav e n o emotiona l relationshi p with thei r children . Th e policie s als o disadvantag e wome n wh o ar e unable t o fulfil l a n economi c rol e t o th e sam e exten t a s me n can , given wag e discrimination , se x segregation , an d othe r form s o f con tinuing, pervasiv e se x discrimination i n th e workplace . This understandin g o f equalit y withi n an d betwee n familie s would eliminat e significan t difference s amon g children , especiall y

165 / Legal Strategies economic difference s whic h ar e derive d fro m thei r parents . I t woul d be th e responsibilit y o f society , throug h th e state , t o insur e tha t th e accident o f birth i s not determinative . T o use th e bootstra p metaphor , this woul d mea n providin g boots , a s wel l a s teachin g th e chil d ho w to pull , an d encouragin g eac h chil d t o reac h hi s o r he r maximu m abilities. If familie s ar e critica l t o individua l growt h an d development , an d also benefit socia l interests, the n familie s mus t b e supported i n orde r to affor d ever y chil d thi s primary , critica l socia l structur e i n orde r t o maximize individua l opportunit y a s well a s socia l benefit. I f equalit y principles requir e tha t gende r an d rac e no t b e determinant s o f indi vidual accomplishment , the n providin g suppor t fo r th e mos t imme diate an d influentia l o f socia l structure s i n orde r t o insur e individua l development shoul d b e required. Th e rol e o f th e stat e i s to safeguar d equality o f opportunit y b y insurin g tha t sufficien t resource s ar e present fo r ever y chil d t o maximiz e hi s o r he r potential . I t i s a t thi s intersection o f equalit y an d freedom , choic e an d opportunity , tha t a reorientation o f famil y suppor t an d lega l conception s o f famil y ha s its mos t powerfu l appeal . The explosio n o f scholarshi p aroun d children' s issue s ca n contrib ute significantl y t o thi s reorientatio n i n a t leas t thre e ways . First , i t can hel p u s defin e th e scop e o f children' s needs . Second , i t ca n provide argument s necessar y t o refocu s ou r attentio n o n children , rather tha n o n parents , i n considerin g th e rol e an d valu e o f families . Third, i t ca n contribut e t o rethinkin g th e rol e o f communit y an d th e state i n relatio n t o family . Our concep t o f children' s right s wil l defin e th e substanc e o f th e opportunities t o b e provide d t o al l children . Advocate s o f children' s rights hav e bee n motivated , t o a significan t extent , b y th e goa l o f better fulfillin g children' s needs . Fro m wha t w e kno w abou t single parent families , th e need s o f th e childre n i n thos e familie s mos t clearly ar e fo r economi c support , nurturin g support , an d acces s t o the opportunit y structure , especiall y education . I t i s easies t fo r th e legal system t o provide fo r economi c needs. It require s redistributio n of wealth an d recognitio n o f socia l as well as individual responsibilit y for, an d benefit from , children . Ther e ma y b e debate an d uncertaint y about definin g th e oute r limi t o f economi c needs , an d t o what exten t compensating fo r adul t inadequacie s mandate s absolut e o r nea r equality wit h wha t leve l o f opportunity . However , i t i s generall y

l 6 6 / LA W REFOR M

agreed tha t ther e i s suc h a large ga p o f basi c need s t o b e close d tha t surely thi s support s consensu s o n a floo r o f need s whic h mus t b e met. Fro m tha t base , w e ca n the n argu e whe n w e hav e reache d th e ceiling that insure s equa l opportunity . It i s critica l tha t w e d o no t continu e t o thin k o f need s purel y i n economic terms . Som e ma y thin k tha t nurturin g canno t b e legis lated, s o it is not a matter fo r law . But this assumptio n i s not entirel y true. La w can recogniz e an d valu e single-paren t families , an d i n tha t way suppor t th e nurturing , teaching , an d developin g whic h single parent familie s do . In redefinin g famil y t o includ e an d valu e single parent families , w e suppor t thei r nurturing , a s wel l a s entitl e the m to economi c suppor t i f needed . Bu t w e ca n also , b y law , provid e nurturing suppor t b y requirin g tha t wor k an d othe r structure s serv e all families , an d insur e th e tim e t o nurture . Th e scholar s wh o hav e focused o n th e importanc e o f nurturin g bonds , especiall y parent child bonds , i n a variety o f setting s includin g adoption , step-parent ing, grand-parenting , an d divorc e ca n contribut e t o articulatin g th e premise fo r structure s tha t suppor t nurturin g o f children , alon g wit h those wh o hav e advocate d fo r a comprehensiv e polic y o f work family supports . Second, children' s la w can help us reorien t lega l discourse t o focu s on children , instea d o f parents . Man y advocate s fo r childre n clai m precisely tha t projec t a s their goal . Whether b y advocatin g fo r repre sentation, o r fo r mean s t o permi t childre n t o b e hear d b y th e lega l system, o r b y suggestin g a ne w framewor k o f substantiv e la w tha t meets children' s needs , man y o f th e reform s suggeste d b y children' s advocates hav e th e commo n goa l o f bette r concret e assistanc e fo r children. Fo r single-paren t families , i t i s essentia l tha t polic y focu s on children , rathe r tha n o n parents . Famil y law' s traditiona l focu s on parent s endanger s childre n i n single-paren t families , sinc e th e stigmatization o f parent s justifie s harshl y punitiv e policie s towar d their children . Finally, lega l discours e ha s bee n influentia l i n constructin g ou r sense o f th e relationshi p o f individua l t o family , an d t o th e state . Advocates fo r children , focusin g o n bringin g children' s perspectiv e and experience s t o th e law , ca n hel p sugges t a differen t publi c rol e for th e community , o r communities , tha t surround , mos t closely , each family . Th e la w ca n suppor t thos e relational , connectiv e ties . Family traditionall y wa s see n a s the mediato r betwee n th e individua l

167 / Legal Strategies and th e state . Wha t need s greate r focu s i s shiftin g th e relationshi p of th e communit y t o th e family . Thi s require s no t onl y recognizin g that caregiver s nee d car e an d support , bu t als o tha t th e communit y has bot h a n interes t an d a responsibilit y i n supportin g families . I t requires shiftin g awa y fro m th e stead y movemen t i n suppor t o f individualism, autonomy , an d contractualism , i n favo r o f connection , support, an d socia l responsibilit y fo r families . The challeng e fo r law , made eviden t b y th e functio n an d need s o f single-parent families , bu t a n issu e fo r al l families, i s dependency. A s Martha Finema n ha s pointed out , ther e ar e two kind s o f dependency , one sh e call s "inevitabl e dependency " whic h i s th e dependenc y o f children; th e secon d i s "derivativ e dependency " whic h i s th e depen dency o f the caretake r o n externa l support s i n orde r t o be a caretake r (Fineman 1992 , 8) . Law doe s no t recogniz e th e comple x characteris tics o r need s o f eithe r kin d o f dependency , no r doe s i t valu e caretak ing. Ye t i t i s a cor e attribut e o f family , whic h clearl y th e la w ha s valued, howeve r imperfectly . Th e understandin g o f dependency , an d support o f caretaking , would , i n conjunctio n wit h concept s o f equal ity an d children' s rights , provid e a basis fo r famil y support . The Problem of

Privacy

Privacy i s the principl e whic h i s mos t closel y associate d wit h family , and privac y operate s i n way s tha t permi t u s a s a societ y t o ignor e inequality. Unde r privac y doctrine , famil y i s perceive d a s a n essen tial, valued socia l structure whic h prepare s individual s t o take advan tage o f equa l opportunit y outsid e th e family . Famil y i s th e plac e where on e i s prepare d t o assum e th e benefit s o f schooling , an d eventually, employment . Whil e i t i s no t th e onl y structur e tha t supports thes e things , family , nonetheless , i s viewe d a s primary — indeed, i t i s th e lac k o f famil y o r effectiv e famil y tha t i s commonl y cited a s th e caus e o f socia l turmoil . I n term s o f equalit y doctrine , family i s th e plac e wher e yo u lear n ho w t o pul l u p th e bootstraps . The opportunit y structur e i s buil t aroun d th e presumptio n o f th e equal abilit y t o lear n ho w t o d o that, centere d particularl y i n family . Family unde r conventiona l privac y doctrine , then , i s protecte d a s the quintessentia l guardia n o f equality : wit h famil y behin d you , yo u can us e th e opportunit y structure . Marth a Finema n ha s explore d whether privac y doctrin e migh t b e a sourc e o f protectio n fo r singl e

l 6 8 / LA W REFOR M

mothers, particularl y agains t stat e intrusio n o r attempt s a t regula tion. Sh e conclude s tha t privac y doctrin e canno t b e s o used , becaus e to d o s o woul d requir e acceptin g single-mothe r familie s withi n th e definition o f th e "natural " (two-parent , heterosexual ) "private " family tha t i s presumed b y privac y doctrin e (Finema n 1991c , 1992). What thi s understanding o f privacy leaves ou t i s the consequence s of inequalit y withi n an d betwee n families , an d it s impac t o n th e lif e opportunities fo r children . B y seein g privac y a s th e ke y t o equality , this perpetuate s inequality . Equality , fro m th e perspectiv e o f chil dren, would mea n no t onl y insuring, o n the basis of privacy doctrine , the valu e an d validatio n o f thei r particula r famil y form , bu t als o insuring tha t th e famil y ha d th e resource s t o insur e th e maxima l development o f th e talent s o f th e child . Tha t equalit y woul d b e measured no t onl y b y th e availabilit y o f economi c resource s whic h would permi t th e optima l us e o f th e opportunit y structures , bu t als o equality o f noneconomi c support . Dorothy Roberts , i n he r wor k exposin g th e denigratio n o f Blac k mothers, ha s argue d fo r a reorientatio n o f constitutiona l doctrin e t o provide greate r autonom y an d support , bu t point s ou t th e hear t o f the problem , th e lac k o f an y affirmativ e requiremen t fo r th e stat e t o reallocate an d assur e resource s t o achiev e meaningfu l autonomy . "The definitio n o f privac y a s a purel y negativ e righ t serve s t o ex empt th e stat e fro m an y obligatio n t o ensur e th e socia l condition s and resource s necessar y fo r self-determinatio n an d autonomou s de cision making " (Robert s 1991 , 1478) . If , however , th e righ t o f pri vacy wer e viewe d a s a guarante e o f choic e makin g fre e o f race , gender, an d clas s hierarchies , the n privac y doctrin e woul d enhanc e equality rathe r tha n reinforc e inequality . I f autonomy i s seen no t fo r the purpos e o f isolatio n an d individuality , bu t rathe r a s a mean s t o guarantee contro l an d empowermen t tha t reflect s a valuin g o f all individuals t o mak e goo d choices , the n privac y doctrin e woul d b e a powerful basi s t o construc t a stron g famil y suppor t polic y (Robert s 1991). Robert s see s thi s connecte d t o du e proces s principles ; I woul d locate i t a s wel l i n a reorientatio n o f privac y doctrine . A s Robert s characterizes it , "th e idea l o f du e process , then , i s a n individua l lif e free o f illegitimat e socia l coercio n facilitate d b y hierarchie s o f class , gender, o r race . Th e goa l i s a n affirmativel y autonomou s existence : a meaningfull y flourishing , independent , enriche d individua l life " (1480).

169 / Legal Strategies It i s clearl y importan t fo r single-paren t familie s tha t th e conven tional rol e o f privac y doctrin e shoul d b e retained , i n orde r t o limi t the reac h o f stat e regulatio n an d intrusion . Singl e parents ar e subjec t to extraordinarily pervasiv e contro l throug h divorc e and welfare. Bu t that nee d no t b e the sol e understanding o f privacy . Th e protectio n o f diversity, becaus e o f th e valuin g o f wha t familie s do , ca n bes t b e accomplished b y insurin g a threshol d o f economi c an d noneconomi c support, al l consisten t with , perhap s eve n mandate d by , a differen t understanding o f privacy . Family support , then , rathe r tha n bein g blocked by privacy , woul d be encouraged b y privacy . Eliminating thi s barrier, an d reconceptual izing i t a s par t o f a mandate , woul d reinforc e th e principle s o f equality an d children' s rights . Certainl y childre n i n single-paren t families woul d no t b e th e sol e beneficiarie s o f thi s differen t sens e o f equality. I f meaningfu l equalit y wer e enshrine d a s a lega l principl e for children , i t would requir e bette r suppor t o f al l parents, a s well a s better connection s betwee n familie s an d othe r socia l institution s an d the communit y i n general .

Epilogue

Analyzing th e socia l an d lega l constructio n o f single-paren t familie s not onl y expose s th e fallacie s underlyin g thei r stigmatization ; i t als o clarifies, onc e again , th e interconnectio n betwee n wor k an d famil y i n the continuin g oppressio n o f wome n an d th e increasin g impover ishment o f children . Work-famil y relationship s a s currentl y con structed als o strongl y inhibi t reconstructin g fatherhoo d a s mor e than bein g a n economi c father . Analysi s o f single-paren t familie s suggests tha t thes e familie s shoul d b e th e mode l upo n whic h wor k and famil y polic y ar e measured . I f th e work-famil y relationshi p ca n be improve d fo r thes e families , the n i t wil l b e possibl e t o improv e the relationshi p fo r al l families . Unraveling th e stigm a attache d t o single-paren t familie s als o ex poses th e intersectio n o f sexis m an d racism , an d thei r manipulatio n to suppor t a color-conscious , color-privilege d patriarchy . Th e recon structed patriarch y dominates , eve n t o th e exten t o f overridin g th e welfare o f children ; patriarch y ignore s th e increasin g impover ishment o f childre n i n orde r t o dete r racia l an d sexua l independenc e and equality . 170

171 / EPILOGU E

Finally, lookin g a t single-paren t familie s wh o demonstrat e grea t strength while , nevertheless, clearl y needin g bette r suppor t fro m th e legal, social , an d economi c structures , expose s th e pric e w e pa y fo r the elevatio n o f th e traditiona l nuclea r family . I t als o show s u s wha t we los e b y failin g t o se e th e uniqu e attribute s o f thes e families . W e think o f single-paren t familie s a s somethin g t o fix . Instead , w e should als o loo k t o the m a s creatin g othe r paradigms . Single-paren t families hav e somethin g t o teach . Mos t importantly , single-paren t families teac h u s tha t i t i s no t th e for m o r structur e o f th e famil y that i s important, bu t wha t famil y does . Single-parent familie s ma y represen t th e frontie r o f recon structing famil y i n a nondominatin g mode . Th e teaching s an d un derstandings derive d fro m th e single-paren t experienc e ma y perhap s contribute t o mor e egalitaria n famil y roles . Indeed , i t i s ironic , bu t not far-fetched , t o speculat e tha t th e increas e i n single-paren t fami lies ma y ultimatel y redoun d t o th e benefi t o f two-paren t families . Children benefi t fro m singl e parent s a s rol e models , an d enhanc e their self-estee m an d independence . Suc h experienc e o f singl e par enthood ma y b e th e basi s fo r committed , cooperative , nondomi nating relationship s whic h ca n b e mor e endurin g tha n thos e o f two-parent families . I t may be, however, tha t i t is this very antipatri archal, egalitaria n potentia l tha t explain s wh y th e attac k o n single parent familie s ha s bee n s o brutal an d unremitting . I wonde r how , a s adults , m y so n an d daughte r wil l envisio n family. M y daughte r i s a t th e ag e wher e th e fantasie s o f marriag e and family , intertwine d wit h elaborat e costume s an d dres s up , ar e part o f th e textur e o f popula r storie s fo r girls—th e happ y endin g i s marrying th e princ e i n a n elaborat e weddin g an d livin g happil y eve r after. O r mayb e not . Sh e ha s storie s tha t var y th e fair y tales—lik e the Pape r Ba g Princess , wh o reject s th e ungratefu l princ e wh o criti cizes the princess' s lac k of appropriat e dres s after sh e saves him fro m a powerfu l dragon . An d oddl y enough , sh e encounter s man y single parent familie s i n popula r movies . Man y o f th e Disne y tale s invari ably involv e a single-paren t father—a s i n Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, an d Aladdin. S o I guess I should no t hav e bee n surprised whe n sh e said , i n tha t wa y childre n hav e o f suddenl y saying somethin g quit e monumenta l amids t a casua l conversation , "Mom, I think I' m no t goin g t o ge t marrie d whe n I grow up. " My so n wa s recentl y aske d ho w man y peopl e wer e i n hi s family . He responde d wit h a lis t tha t include d no t onl y hi s mothe r an d

172 / EPILOGU E

sister, bu t als o a n assortmen t o f grown-up s an d children , som e o f whom h e see s nearl y ever y day , som e o f who m h e ha s no t see n fo r months, on e wh o live s o n th e othe r sid e o f th e globe . Lik e hi s sister , who dre w tha t wonderfu l picture , hi s "family " include s th e peopl e whom h e love s an d wh o lov e him . Th e connectio n i s on e o f th e heart. I t i s th e sam e connectio n tha t m y student s mak e whe n I as k them t o defin e famil y My childre n certainl y d o no t se e ou r famil y a s unusual . I woul d like the m t o hav e choice s an d the n t o trus t thei r judgment , thei r creativity, an d thei r lov e fo r themselve s an d others . I believ e al l children shoul d hav e suc h choices . I n orde r t o d o so , w e mus t challenge th e rhetori c o f car e fo r children , whic h ca n als o justif y undermining th e familie s s o critica l t o ou r children' s future s an d t o our futures . W e mus t challeng e rhetori c whic h discard s som e chil dren lik e cheap , unwante d propert y whil e continuin g t o privileg e others. I t i s unconscionabl e t o accep t th e abandonmen t o f som e children becaus e o f the structur e o f their famil y o r to se e the povert y of an y chil d a s inevitable o r insoluble . Children deserv e ou r suppor t an d care . Al l children . I n orde r fo r us a s a societ y t o provid e tha t suppor t an d care , w e mus t valu e al l families whic h nouris h an d car e fo r children , regardles s o f form . While I am no t optimisti c tha t w e will shif t polic y in th e near future , I am hopefu l tha t i f w e continu e t o challeng e antifamil y policies , w e can als o envision rea l suppor t o f al l families .

Notes

NOTES TO CHAPTE R 1 i. O n singl e motherhoo d se e Marth a Finema n wh o states : "Singl e mother hood represent s bot h th e caus e an d th e resul t o f th e disintegratio n o f th e family an d society ; i t i s a demographic categor y fille d wit h politica l an d mora l significance, an d a s suc h i s viewe d a s havin g bot h explanator y an d pre dictive powers. This is true not only in popular discourse but in more 'reflective 7 areas o f discours e suc h a s th e socia l sciences , policy an d law/ ' (Finema n 1991b , 177) 2. 'Th e chil d i s no t th e mer e creatur e o f th e state ; thos e wh o nurtur e hi m and direc t hi s destin y hav e th e rights , couple d wit h th e hig h duty , t o recogniz e and prepare hi m fo r additiona l obligations' 7 {Pierce v. Society of Sisters 1925) . 3. Durin g the past decade, female-headed household s increased dramatically ; not al l o f thos e households , o f course , includ e mino r children . Female-heade d households constitut e 1 7 percen t o f al l households ; amon g blac k households , they ar e 4 4 percent ; amon g whites , 1 3 percent . Childre n unde r eightee n ar e present i n 61 percent o f all female-headed household s (Rawling s 1994 , 5-7)4. Quayl e professe d th e utmos t respec t fo r singl e mothers , citin g hi s siste r and grandmother s a s among tha t grou p (presumabl y widowe d o r divorced , an d therefore honorabl e single parents) , bu t targete d ou t singl e dad s a s needin g t o

173

174 / NOTE S T O CHAPTE R 2 act more responsibl y towar d th e childre n the y ha d fathere d (presumabl y mean ing brought int o the world, o r parented, o r both) (Babingto n 1992) . 5. "Man y writer s clai m tha t father-absenc e interfere s wit h th e boy' s devel opment a s a health y mal e bu t les s wit h th e girl' s developmen t a s a soun d female: ' A boy reall y need s a father' " (Adam s e t al . 1984). "Littl e researc h ha s explored th e impac t o f father-absenc e o n femal e sex-rol e identification , an d th e rare paper s ar e ofte n cas e studies " (168) . "I t i s a n interestin g commen t o n ou r culture tha t menta l healt h worker s worr y abou t a lack of mal e models fo r boys , but rarel y i s concer n expresse d fo r th e necessit y o f stron g femal e model s fo r girls" (Bilg e an d Kaufma n 1983 , 68) . Thi s vie w ha s bee n linke d wit h th e assumption tha t masculin e traits , ofte n highl y traditionall y defined , ar e th e most desirabl e t o acquire , whil e cros s se x trait s ar e devalued (Adam s e t al . 1984).

NOTES TO CHAPTE R 2 i. Whil e th e repor t doe s no t directl y blame singl e parents , o r singl e moth ers, i t nevertheles s stigmatize s them : "childre n d o bes t whe n the y hav e th e personal involvemen t an d materia l suppor t o f a father an d a mother an d whe n both parent s fulfil l thei r responsibilit y t o b e lovin g providers " {Final Report 1991, xix). 2. Se e als o a n unpublishe d pape r b y Davi d Ange l whic h state s tha t whe n economic difference s ar e factore d in , difference s i n education , occupation , em ployment, an d happines s betwee n childre n fro m two-paren t versu s single-par ent familie s largel y disappear . Angel' s researc h wa s base d o n surve y dat a fro m 1975 to 1990 (Ange l 1992). 3. Onl y abou t 3. 5 percen t o f thos e receivin g AFD C hav e a decease d fathe r (Note 1990). 4. Se e als o Maclea n wh o state s tha t a majorit y o f single-paren t familie s i n the OEC D countrie s d o no t rel y t o an y significan t exten t o n privat e mainte nance payments (Maclea n 1990 , 91, 97). 5. Citin g depression-era studies , one author noted that "i t can be conjecture d that, withi n th e contex t o f the 'traditiona l family / childre n perceiv e th e father' s success a s a n economi c achieve r an d provide r t o constitut e a measur e o f hi s effectiveness a s a parent" (Siega l 1985 , 7) . Conversely , th e mother' s effective ness is influenced b y children' s perception s o f thei r activitie s insid e an d outsid e of th e famil y (97) . Interestingly , depression-er a studie s indicat e tha t whe n fathers wer e unemploye d an d mother s shifte d t o dominatin g famil y decisions , the consequenc e wa s no t s o muc h damag e t o th e father' s imag e a s increase d positive evaluation s o f the mother (10) . 6. Thi s term relate s to dulia which is the veneration an d invocation give n b y Roman Catholic s t o thei r saint s a s the servant s o f God . Kitta y describe s douli a as "neste d dependencies, " a mode l o f reciprocal , cooperativ e activity , wher e "service i s rendered t o those who become needy b y virtue o f attendin g t o thos e in need " (Kitta y 1995 , 10).

175 / NOTE S T O CHAPTE R 2 7. I n order to meet work and family demands , single employed mothers giv e up personal time, including slee p and rest (Sani k and Mauldin 1986) . 8. Constan t car e o f childre n ca n hav e negativ e effect s o n women' s well being, associate d wit h depressio n an d physiologica l symptoms ; als o studie s o f marital happines s sho w th e highes t happines s jus t befor e a chil d i s bor n an d after thei r departur e ("Feminis t Psychology " 1992 , 35). 9. Se e Adams to understand th e strongly patrifoca l characteristic s o f Freud' s theories (Adam s et al. 1984,19). 10. Cultur e i s a powerful influenc e and , fo r youn g children , s o ar e school s (Snyder 1992 , 5-7). 11. "I n short, singl e mothers fac e a threefold disadvantage : they ar e women , they ar e mothers, and most ar e formerly married. " Eac h of these factor s add s to stress (McLanaha n an d Booth 1989 , 562). 12. Thi s term wa s coined by Professo r Paulett e Caldwell , who ha s used i t t o analyze the treatment o f African America n singl e mothers . 13. I n 1993 , 1 7 percen t o f whit e singl e parent s wer e neve r married , com pared t o 4 3 percen t o f Blac k single parents ; 4 4 percen t o f whit e singl e parent s were divorced, compare d to 22 percent of black single parents (Burea u o f Censu s 1994)14. A simila r critiqu e i s levele d a t researc h o n self-concept s whic h avoi d confronting racis m o r suggestin g way s o f constructivel y helpin g Blac k childre n (Spencer 1988 , 59). 15. On e researche r ha s conclude d tha t an y indication s o f childre n doin g better i n single-fathe r home s i s connecte d t o bette r economi c statu s (Downe y 1994,132). 16. Man y court s remove childre n fro m a lesbian parent . Fo r example, pater nal grandparent s obtaine d custod y base d primaril y upo n th e fac t tha t th e mother wa s lesbia n (White v. Thompson 1990) . A fathe r was awarde d custod y because th e cour t foun d tha t th e mother' s live-i n relationshi p wit h he r lesbia n lover tippe d th e scale s in favo r o f th e fathe r (G.A. v. D.A. 1987) . Another cour t attached a "presumption o f regularity " t o th e mor e traditiona l relationshi p an d placed the burden of proving no adverse effect fro m th e homosexual relationshi p upon th e perso n advocatin g i t (Constant A. v. Paul C.A. 1985) . Another cour t stated that the homosexuality o f the mother was an overriding factor i n deciding custody in favo r o f father (Jacobsen v. Jacobsen 1981). Finally, a court ordere d a change o f custod y fro m a lesbia n mothe r t o th e father , base d o n exper t testi mony o f a likelihoo d o f socia l stigm a attache d t o homosexualit y an d negativ e role modeling (S. v. S. 1980). 17. I n Septembe r 199 3 Famil y Cour t Judg e Joh n W . Sweene y i n Putna m County, Ne w York , denie d a reques t fo r adoptio n b y a lesbian o f he r partner' s biological child . Th e cour t state d tha t th e Ne w Yor k Domesti c Relation s La w does not provide fo r adoption s by a same-sex partner. I n December 1993 , Family Court Judg e Anthon y J . Sciolin o o f Rochester , Ne w York , rule d tha t suc h a n adoption was not prohibited b y the New York Law and approved a n adoption b y a lesbia n partne r (Anderso n 1994) . To date, adoptio n b y lesbian s o f thei r part ner's childre n ha s been permitted i n Ne w York , Vermont, an d Illinois. Although

176 / NOTE S T O CHAPTE R 3 only Florid a an d Ne w Hampshir e specificall y ba r homosexual s fro m adoptin g children, som e states , suc h a s Virginia , den y adoptio n base d o n th e illegalit y of homosexua l activity . Virgini a define s sodom y a s ora l o r ana l se x betwee n homosexuals o r heterosexual s an d make s i t a crimina l offense . Th e Virgini a Supreme Cour t ha s rule d tha t a parent's homosexualit y i s grounds fo r denyin g custody because homosexual activit y i s illegal (Campbel l 1993 , 25). 18. Ther e ar e a n estimate d 1. 5 millio n lesbia n mother s an d on e millio n ga y fathers i n the United State s an d six million childre n wit h ga y or lesbian parent s (Gottman 1989 , 177).

NOTES TO CHAPTE R 3 i. Femal e single parent s di d repor t greate r emotiona l strai n an d economi c strain. Th e average wor k burden , betwee n jo b an d hom e responsibilities , i s seventy-five hour s per week (Burde n 1986 , 41). 2. Som e studie s sho w tha t father s spend , a t most , te n minute s dail y wit h newborn infant s (Adam s e t al . 1984 , 6) . Fro m thes e studie s an d other s th e authors conclud e that boy s model their behaviors after thei r mothers , peers, and male instructors, no t thei r father s (118) . 3. I f thi s figur e i s calculate d o n th e basi s o f th e wor k wome n obtai n i n a highly segregate d workplace , the n th e los s is even greate r i f i t i s presumed tha t childless women hav e a better chanc e of obtaining "men's " work . 4. Abou t half o f custodial parents are entitled t o support under a court order . Of those , awards are small. In 198 3 they average d $1,965 per year fo r on e child , which mean s tha t eve n whe n suppor t i s paid , th e famil y i s stil l impoverished . The remainde r o f suppor t i s paid b y th e custodia l parent . Becaus e wome n ear n less, they hav e less to share with thei r childre n (Czapanski y 1989) . 5. "Toda y educatio n i s perhap s th e mos t importan t functio n o f stat e an d local governments . . . . I t i s the ver y foundatio n o f goo d citizenship . Toda y i t i s a principl e instrumen t i n awakenin g th e chil d t o cultura l values , i n preparin g him fo r late r professional training , an d in helping him t o adjust normall y t o his environment. . . . Such a n opportunity , wher e th e stat e ha s undertake n t o pro vide it, is a right which mus t b e made available to all on equal terms" (Brown v. Board of Education 1954 , 691). 6. Th e Famil y an d Medica l Leav e Ac t o f 199 3 provide s aggregat e annua l leave o f twelv e weeks , whic h ma y b e compose d o f parenta l leave , leav e t o car e for a seriousl y il l immediat e famil y member , and/o r leav e fo r th e employee' s serious illness . Th e ac t cover s employer s o f fift y o r mor e employees , an d a n employee mus t hav e worke d fo r twelv e month s fo r a minimum o f 125 0 hour s to b e eligibl e fo r leave . Leav e i s unpaid , althoug h i f a n employe r provide s an y form o f paid leave, the employe r ma y requir e th e employe e t o utilize tha t leav e during th e perio d o f entitlemen t t o famil y an d disabilit y leav e (Dow d 1993 , 339)7. Forty-fiv e percen t o f entrie s ont o AFD C wer e du e t o divorce/separatio n (Committee o n Ways and Means 1993 , 725 Table 48).

177 / NOTE S T O CHAPTE R 4 8. W e lac k a famil y suppor t polic y beyon d ver y limite d unwage d famil y leave an d dominantl y middle-clas s ta x suppor t policies . W e hav e move d onl y slowly towar d insurin g tha t chil d suppor t b e pai d b y al l wh o shoul d an d ca n pay. W e continu e t o plac e th e burde n o n poo r parent s t o pursu e paymen t o f support an d provide n o backup assurance o f suppor t othe r tha n welfar e benefit s which ar e inadequate t o pull a family abov e the poverty line.

NOTES TO CHAPTE R 4 i. Som e o f th e mor e recen t increase s ma y reflect , i n part , bette r collectio n of data rather tha n rea l increases (Salute r 1989) . 2. Althoug h two-third s o f al l singl e parent s ar e white , th e occurrenc e o f single-parent household s i s muc h mor e commo n amon g Africa n Americans . Two-thirds o f al l African America n famil y group s wit h childre n ar e maintaine d by singl e parents , compare d t o one-quarte r amon g whites . Amon g Hispanics , single parent s constitut e 3 5 percen t o f famil y group s wit h childre n (Burea u o f Census 1994) . Accordin g t o on e report , les s tha n hal f (4 4 percent ) o f Blac k adults ar e no w married , a drop o f one-thir d fro m 1970 . By the ag e o f thirt y t o thirty-four, 4 4 percent o f Blac k me n an d 4 3 percen t o f Blac k women ha d neve r married i n 1991 . For whites , th e proportion s wer e 2 5 percen t fo r me n an d 1 5 percent fo r women ; fo r Hispanics , 2 7 percen t fo r me n an d 1 9 percen t fo r women. Amon g Blac k teenagers , th e rat e o f teenag e pregnanc y an d unwe d motherhood remain s hig h bu t i s no t rising ; whit e teenager s ar e closin g th e race differentia l b y a n upwar d tren d i n unwe d parenthood . Blac k teenager s nevertheless ar e fou r time s mor e likel y t o hav e childre n tha n whit e teenager s (Bureau o f Censu s 1994). 3. Th e sam e pattern exist s fo r othe r wome n o f color . Divorce does not mea n a dramatic economic change, because they to o begin fro m lowe r economi c levels than d o most white women (Wagne r 1993 , 121). 4. Fo r a fascinatin g articl e comparin g th e developmen t o f nineteenth-cen tury famil y la w an d souther n la w o f th e slav e family , se e "A n Impossibl e Marriage: Slav e La w and Famil y Law " (Burnha m 1987) . Burnham's descriptio n of th e lega l definitio n o f th e slav e famil y ha s som e eeri e resonance s t o ho w w e view childre n a s disconnecte d piece s o f property , rathe r tha n a s embedde d i n families o f whatever form : The slave family . . . was constructed outside of legal developments governing family relationships . . . the slave family could be an organic unit of permanently linked, interdependent persons. In the eyes of the law, each slave stood as an individual unit of property, and never as a submerged partner in a marriage or family. (Burnham 1987, 189). The rational e wa s tha t slave s wer e different , licentious , dumb , childish , an d therefore undeservin g o f lega l recognitio n an d value . Ho w thi s resonate s wit h today's views of single-paren t families ! 5. Harri s argue s tha t resistanc e t o affirmativ e actio n i s tie d t o th e threa t t o

178 / NOTE S T O CHAPTE R 5 whiteness an d does an extensive analysi s of how this operates (Harris , C. 1993). 6. A s on e singl e mothe r stated : "[th e syste m is ] se t u p t o help yo u fai l an d if yo u fai l it' s no t ther e t o hel p you—s o wha t i s th e purpos e i n it ? I don' t understand it " (Polako w 1993, 79). 7. Th e mos t commo n test , th e Huma n Leukocyt e Antige n (HLA ) test , i s generally administere d a t it s highest, mos t reliabl e level , Level III, and tests fo r 90 genetic markers. DNA testing is even more reliable, but mor e expensive . 8. Thes e costs were quote d i n a phone conversatio n o n July 27 , 1995, with a representative fro m Cellmar k Diagnosti c (1-800-872-5227 ) locate d in German town, Maryland . 9. Procedura l requirement s includ e th e indigen t father' s righ t t o appointe d counsel; th e requiremen t tha t indigen t father s b e provide d bloo d test s a t stat e expense whe n th e stat e initiate s th e proceedin g (Littl e v . Streate r 1981) ; th e requirement o f clea r an d convincin g evidenc e standar d (instea d o f a preponder ance of the evidence standard); and the right t o a jury trial . 10. Fo r practica l difficultie s i n obtainin g informatio n abou t paterna l pat terns, se e a n interestin g articl e writte n b y Nichols-Casebol t an d Garfinke l (*99*)11. Fo r a descriptio n o f th e favore d statu s o f widow s an d th e histor y o f widows benefit s a s compare d wit h welfar e benefits , se e Steve n Sugarman' s (1993) article. As the syste m presentl y operates , it distinguishes betwee n youn g widows wit h dependen t childre n an d olde r widows , especiall y displace d housewives; the syste m pays greater benefit s t o the olde r widows if on e ignore s the benefits pai d to the young widow on behalf o f the dependen t child . 12. Fo r a n excellen t summar y o f th e bills , se e th e articl e authore d b y Mat thew Diller (1995) .

NOTES TO CHAPTE R 5 i. I t i s interestin g t o not e tha t unti l recentl y virtuall y al l researc h o n unemployment an d it s effect s o n famil y an d especiall y o n parenta l dynamic s was focuse d exclusivel y o n men . T o the exten t wome n ar e no w bein g studied , Black wome n ar e studie d th e least , despit e thei r longe r wor k history . Th e consequences fo r parentin g o f unemploymen t an d fo r wome n generall y follo w the consequence s fo r men , tha t is , depression an d mor e authoritaria n disciplin e (McLloyd 1994). 2.

For the most part, young Black mothers are not demoralized about their future; in fact, they are more likely to have high educational expectations, greater school attachment, and access to child care. . . . We find that young white mothers tend to marry earlier and to drop out of school at higher rates than Blacks. White females are most likely to experience accelerated adult role entry by becoming not only mothers but wives. Young Black mothers are willing to postpone marriage and accept the low-income Black community norm that the role of mother is more important than wife, particularly when an unstable marriage is foreseen. . . . This

179 / NOTE S T O CHAPTE R 7 research suggests that young white women suffer mor e immediate educational handicaps from counternormative role transitions than young Black women (Peters et al. 1981, 222). 3. Ther e i s a simila r patter n amon g Mexica n America n familie s o f a les s dramatic economi c shift , becaus e two-paren t familie s als o ar e poor , bu t hav e a stronger suppor t structur e (Wagne r 1993) . 4. Fo r divorce d women , thi s translate s int o a highe r sens e o f satisfactio n after divorce , less depression, an d fewe r adjustmen t difficulties . 5. Childre n o f single-mothe r familie s hav e a significan t degre e o f contac t with adul t males . Thi s stud y show s th e benefi t o f anothe r adul t i n th e house hold o f th e sam e sex . I t als o underscore s th e importanc e o f suppor t network s for positiv e outcome s fo r childre n o f single-paren t household s (Stolb a an d Amato 1993).

NOTES TO CHAPTE R 6 i. Th e widow/widower' s benefi t continue s unti l th e younges t chil d reache s sixteen year s o f age . Children' s benefit s continu e unti l th e eac h chil d reache s the ag e of either eightee n o r nineteen . 2. A s Sugarman notes , such a system woul d no t simpl y replac e AFDC, since the entitlemen t woul d ru n t o al l singl e parents , s o singl e parents no t o n AFD C would als o qualif y (Sugarma n 1995) . Wha t I sugges t her e i s a mor e modes t proposal tha t woul d targe t nonmarita l singl e parent s first , althoug h ideall y i t would includ e al l singl e parents , includin g thos e wher e n o fathe r ca n b e foun d or identified, o r where ther e i s good cause not t o do so. 3. Thi s i s reflecte d i n terminolog y an d presumption s o f custod y statutes . See, fo r example , Florida' s schem e o f a primar y residentia l paren t an d libera l visitation fo r th e othe r paren t (Fl.St . §61 et seq.). 4. Thi s study compare s singl e mothers' net disposabl e income to average ne t disposable income. The ratio in Swede n i s .8422; in the United State s .5381 ; and in Australi a .5486 . The lowes t echelo n countrie s studie d ar e th e Unite d States , Canada, an d Australia . Publi c transfer s ar e a n inescapabl e portio n o f a singl e mothers' income . I t i s interesting t o not e tha t i n th e Unite d States , o n averag e single mothers are younger, have more children, and have the youngest childre n compared t o other countrie s studie d (Garfinkel , e t al. 1993, 180).

NOTES TO CHAPTER 7 1. Th e Supreme Cour t relied on the rights of the child as against th e mothe r to uphol d th e state' s powe r t o sen d socia l worker s int o th e home s o f benefi t recipients, unannounced an d without consen t (Wyman v. James 1971). 2. Th e plaintiff name d severa l me n a s possible father s o f her child , but the y were eithe r exclude d b y bloo d test s o r coul d no t b e located . Th e agenc y the n required he r t o tur n ove r a calenda r o n whic h sh e supposedl y ha d writte n th e

l 8 0 / NOTE S T O CHAPTE R J names of her sexua l partners. When sh e refused, he r benefits wer e cut (Finema n 1991c, 964). 3. Ther e ar e man y case s o n reproductiv e right s an d th e sanctit y o f privat e decision makin g regardin g famil y (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 ; Eisenstadt v. Baird 1972; Roe v. Wade 1973 ; Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992) . 4. Accordin g t o McCaffery , thi s patter n occur s becaus e ta x la w aggregate s incomes of husband and wife, because there is no taxing of self-supplied service s which ma y serv e a s a n incentiv e t o sta y a t home , becaus e socia l securit y contributions an d benefit s protec t stay-at-hom e spouse s whil e penalizin g sec ondary earners , becaus e ther e i s inadequat e coverag e fo r mixe d business/plea sure expenses , an d becaus e th e taxatio n o f noncas h benefit s encourage s singl e earners t o provid e health , pension , an d relate d benefit s t o th e entir e famil y (McCaffery 1993b) .

References

BOOKS AND ARTICLES Aaron, Henr y A. , and Camera n M . Lougy. 1986. The Comparable Worth Controversy. Washingto n D.C. : Brookings Institute . Adams, Paul L., Judith R . Milner, an d Nancy A. Schrepf. 1984. Fatherless Children. Ne w York: Wiley. Addis, Adeno. 1991. "Individualism, Communitarianism , an d the Right s of Eth nic Minorities." Notre Dame Law Review 66:1219 . Allen, Charlotte . 1994 "Federalizatio n o f Chil d Support : Twenty Years and Counting/' Michigan Bar Journal yy.66o. Allessandri, Steve n M . 1992. "Effects o f Maternal Wor k Statu s in Single-Par ent Familie s on Children' s Perceptio n o f Sel f an d Famil y and Schoo l Achievement/7 Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 54:417 . Amar, Akhil R. , an d Daniel Widawsky. 1992. "Commentary: Chil d Abuse as Slavery: A Thirteenth Amendmen t Respons e to DeShaney." Harvard Law Review 105:1359 . Amato, Paul R., and Bruce Keith. 1991. "Separation fro m a Parent durin g Child hood and Adult Socioeconomi c Attainment." Social Forces 70:187 .

181

l82/

REFERENCE S

Amott, Teresa . 1988. "Working fo r Less : Single Mothers i n the Workplace/' I n Women as Single Parents: Confronting Institutional Barriers in the Courts, the Workplace and the Housing Market, edite d by Elizabet h A . Mulroy. Dover, Mass.: Auborn Hous e Publishing . Anderson, Cerisse . 1994. "Recent Ruling s Divid e on Lesbian Adoptions/' New York Law Journal (Januar y 25) . Anderson, Paul , and Devin Davey . 1995. "Communitarianism." New Statesman and Society (Marc h 3). Angel, David. 1992. "The Declining Significance o f Biology." Presented a t Criti cal Network Conference , Boston , Massachusett s (unpublishe d manuscript , on file with th e Harvard Women's Law Journal). Austin, Regina . 1989. "Sapphire Bound. " Wisconsin Law Review 1989:539 . Babington, Charles . 1992. "Trying to Redefine Debate , Quayle Denounces Hol lywood, Praise s Single Mothers." Washington Post (September 2) . Barber, Bonni e L. , and Jacquelynne S . Eccles. 1992. "Long-Term Influence s o f Divorce and Singl e Parenting o n Adolescent Famil y an d Work Relate d Values, Behaviors an d Aspirations." Psychological Bulletin (January) . Belchman, Elain e A. 1982. "Are Children with On e Paren t a t Psychologica l Risk? A Methodological Review. " Journal of Marriage and Family 44:179. Belsky, Jay. 1990. "Parental an d Nonparental Chil d Car e and Children' s Socio emotional Development : A Decade in Review. " Journal of Marriage and Family 52:885. Bennett, Claudett e E . 1995. The Black Population in the United States March 1994 and 1993. Washington, D.C. : United State s Department o f Com merce, Bureau o f the Census . Bergmann, Barbar a R . 1986. The Economic Emergence of Women. Ne w York: Basic Books. Besharov, Douglas. 1992. "Beyond Murph y Brown : We're Ignoring the Fact That All Single Mothers Aren't Alike. " Washington Post (September 27) . Bilge, Barbara, an d Gladis Kaufman. 1983 . "Children o f Divorce and One-Par ent Families : Cross-cultural Perspectives. " Family Relations 32:59 . Blankenhorn, David . 1995. Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. Ne w York: Basic Books. Bowlby, John. 1988. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Ne w York: Basic Books. Bowman, Cynthi a G . 1993. "Street Harassmen t an d the Informal Ghettoriza tion o f Women." Harvard Law Review 106:517 . Boyle, Jacqueline. 1994. "Mom Appeal s Judge's Custod y Ruling. " Detroit Free Press (August 2 ) sec. B. Bradley, David. 1990. "Equality fo r Childre n o f Unmarried Parent s in Swedis h Law." Journal of Social Welfare Law 5:341.

183 / REFERENCE S Bray, Rosemary. 1992. "So How Did I Get Here?" New York Times Sunday Magazine (Marc h 5) §6 p. 35. Brewer, Ros e M. 1988. "Black Women i n Poverty : Som e Comments o n Female Headed Families. " Signs 13:2 . Bronstein, Phyliss , JoAnn Clauson , Miria m Franke l Stoll , and Crai g L. Abrams. 1993. "Parentin g Behavio r an d Children' s Social , Psychological, an d Academic Adjustment i n Diverse Famil y Structure. " Family Relations 42:268 . Brown-Scott, Wendy . 1994. "Symposium: Changin g Image s of the State : The Communitarian State : Lawlessness o r La w Reform fo r African-Ameri cans." Harvard Law Review 107:1209 . Buckley, William F . 1992a. "Blam e Illegitimat e Births , Too." San Diego Union Tribune (May 15 ) sec. B. . 1992b. "The Murph y Brow n Law. " Baltimore Evening Sun (Ma y 27 ) 15A. Burden, Diann e S . 1986. "Single Parents an d the Work Setting : The Impact of Multiple Job and Homelife Responsibilities. " Family Relations 34:215 . Bureau o f Census . 1989. U. S. Department of Commerce, Studies in Marriage and the Family, Singleness in America. 16 . . 1992. 17 . S. Department of Commerce, Who's Supporting the Kids? (January 29) . . 1994. U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States. 114t h edition : 471. Burnham, Margaret . 1987 . "An Impossible Marriage : Slave Law and Famil y Law." Law and Inequality 5:187 . Burtless, Gary. 1992. "When Wor k Doesn't Work : Employment Program s fo r Welfare Recipients. " Brookings Review 10:26 . Cahn, Edga r S . 1994. "Reinventing Povert y Law. " Yale Law Journal 103:2133. Campbell, Lind a P. 1993. "Custody Rulin g Fuel s Gay Rights Discussion." Chicago Tribune (September 12 ) p. 25. Carbone, June R., an d Margaret F . Brinig. 1991. "Rethinking Marriage : Feminist Ideology , Economi c Change, and Divorce Reform." Tulane Law Review 65:953. Carlson, Cindy . 1987. "Children an d Single-Paren t Homes. " In Children's Needs: Psychological Perspectives, edited by Alex Thomas an d Jeff Grimes . Washington, D.C. : National Association o f Schoo l Psychologists . Cashion, Barbar a C . 1982. "Female-Headed Families : Effects o n Childre n an d Clinical Implications." Journal of Marital and Family Therapy S:yy. Chamallas, Martha. 1986 . "Women an d Part-time Work: The Cas e for Pa y Equity an d Equa l Access." North Carolina Law Review 64:709 . Chambers, David L. 1990. "Step Parents , Biological Parents , and the Law' s Per ception o f 'Family ' afte r Divorce. " In Divorce Reform at the Crossroads,

1 8 4 / REFERENCE S

edited by Stev e Sugarman an d Herma H . Kay. New Haven: Yale University Press. Claude, Judy. 1986. "Poverty Pattern s fo r Blac k Men an d Women/ 7 The Black Scholar September/October . Committee o n Ways and Means, House of Representatives . 1992. "Overview of Entitlement Programs/ ' io2 d Congress , 2d Session. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printin g Office . . 1993. "Overview o f Entitlement Programs/ ' 103 d Congress, 1st Session. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printin g Office . Coontz, Stephanie . 1992. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Ne w York: Basic Books. . 1995. "The American Famil y and the Nostalgia Trap : Attributing Americans' Socia l Problems to the Breakdown o f the Traditional Family. " Phi Delta Kappan y6:Ki. Creno, Cathryn. 1995 . "The Custod y Crunc h Demand s o f Courts , Workplace Play Havoc with Mom' s Lives. " Arizona Republic Phoenix Gazette (June 27). Crockett, Lis a J., David J. Eggebeen, an d Alan J . Hawkins. 1993. "Father's Pres ence and Young Children's Behaviora l an d Cognitiv e Adjustment." Journal of Family Issues 14:355. Czapanskiy, Karen . 1989. "Child Suppor t an d Visitation: Rethinkin g th e Con nections." Rutgers Law Journal 20:619. . 1991. "Volunteers and Draftees: Th e Struggle fo r Parenta l Equality. " University of California at Los Angeles Law Review 38:1415 . "Dateline." 1994. NBC News (Septembe r 13). DeParle, Jason. 1994. "Welfare Mother s Fin d Jobs Easy to Get But Hard t o Hold/''New York Times (October 24 ) Ai:io. Dickson, Janet Hopkins. 1991. "The Emerging Right s o f Adoptive Parents : Substance or Specter? " University of California at Los Angeles Law Review 38:917. Diller, Matthew. 1995 . "What's Doin g in Federa l Welfare Reform : Her e Come the Block Grants." Newsletter of the American Association of Law Schools, Poverty Law Section, Gillis Long Poverty Law Center, Loyola University School of Law, Vol. 28 (September) . Dolgin, Janet L . 1994. "The Famil y in Transition fro m Griswol d t o Eisenstad t and Beyond." Georgetown Law Journal 82:1519. Dolkart, Jane L. 1994. "Hostile Environmen t Harassment : Equality , Objectivity , and the Shapin g of Legal Standards." Emory Law Journal 43:151. Dowd, Nancy E. 1989a. "Work and Family: The Gender Parado x and the Limita tions of Discrimination Analysi s in Restructurin g th e Workplace." Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 24:79 .

1 8 5 / REFERENCE S

. 1989b. "Envisioning Work and the Family: A Critical Perspective on In ternational Models/ ' Harvard Journal on Legislation 26:311 . . 1990. "Work an d Family: Restructuring th e Workplace." Arizona Law Review 32:431 . . 1993. "Family Values and Valuing Family: A Blueprint fo r Famil y Leave." Harvard Journal on Legislation 30:335 . . 1994. "Book Review: A Feminist Analysis o f Adoption." Harvard Law Review 107:913 . . 1995. "Stigmatizing Singl e Parents." Harvard Women's Law Journal 18:19.

Downey, Douglas B. 1994. "The Schoo l Performance o f Childre n fro m Single Mother an d Single-Fathe r Families : Economic or Interpersona l Depriva tion." Journal of Family Issues 15:129. Duffy, Ma y E. 1993. "Social Support: The Provider's Perspective. " Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 19:57 . Duncan, Gre g J., and Willard Rodgers . 1990. "Lone-Parent Familie s and Thei r Economic Problems: Transitory o r Persistent? " I n Lone-Parent Families: The Economic Challenge, edite d by Elizabeth Duskin . Washington, D.C. : Organization fo r Economi c Co-operation an d Development Centre . Duskin, Elizabeth . 1990 . "Overview." I n Lone-Parent Families: The Economic Challenge, edite d by Elizabeth Duskin . Washington, D.C. : Organizatio n for Economi c Co-operation an d Development Centre . Ellman, Ir a Mark, Pau l M. Kurtz, an d Katherin e T . Bartlett. 1991 . Family Law: Cases, Text, Problems. 2nd edition. Charlottesville , VA. : Michie. Ellwood, David T 1988 . Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family. New York: Basic Books. Epstein, Richar d A. 1992. Forbidden Grounds: The Case against Employment Discrimination Laws. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Universit y Press . Ermisch, John. 1990 . "Demographic Aspects of the Growing Numbe r o f Lone Parent Families. " In Lone-Parent Families: The Economic Challenge, edite d by Elizabeth Duskin . Washington, D.C. : Organization fo r Economi c Co-operation an d Development Centre . Estin, Ann Laquer . 1993. "Maintenance, Alimony, an d the Rehabilitatio n o f Family Care. " North Carolina Law Review 71:721 . Etzioni, Amitai. 1992. "Responsive Communitaria n Platform : Right s and Responsibilities." Responsive Community Winte r 1991/1992 . . 1993. The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Cummunitarian Agenda. Southbridge , Mass. : Crown Publishing . Evans, Sara M., and Barbara J. Nelson. 1989. Wage Justice: Comparable Worth and the Paradox of Technocratic Reform. Chicago : University o f Chicag o Press.

l86/

REFERENCE S

Family and Medical Leave Act, 1993. 29 U.S.C.A. §§2601-54 . "Feminist Psychology/ ' 1992. In Feminist Perspectives in Therapy: An Empowerment Model for Women, edite d by Judith Worell and Pa m Remer. Chi chester, N.Y. : Wiley. Ferree, Myra Marx . 1990. "Beyond Separat e Spheres : Feminism an d Famil y Research." Journal of Marriage and Family 52:866. 1991. Final Report of the National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families. Washington, D.C. : United State s Government Printin g Office . Fine, Mark A., and Andrew I . Schwebel. 1988. "An Emergent Explanatio n of Differing Racia l Reactions to Singl e Parenthood." Journal of Divorce Vol. II. Fineman, Marth a L . 1983. "Implementing Equality : Ideology, Contradictio n and Socia l Change: A Study o f Rhetori c and Result s in the Regulatio n o f the Consequence s o f Divorce." Wisconsin Law Review 1983:789 . . 1991a. The Illusion of Equality: The Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform. Chicago : University o f Chicag o Press. . 1991b. "Images o f Mothers i n Poverty Discourses." Duke Law Journal 1991:274. . 1991c. "Intimacy Outsid e o f the Natural Family : The Limit s of Privacy." Connecticut Law Review 23:955 . . 1992. "The Neutered Mother " University of Miami Law Review 46:653. Fitzgerald, Wendy A. 1994. "Maturity, Difference , an d Mystery: Children' s Per spectives and the Law. " Arizona Law Review 36:11 . . 1995. "Children, Propert y an d Capital : A Strategy fo r th e Legal Recognition o f Children" (unpublishe d work in progress). Ford, Donna Yvette , Florida Statut e 61.00 1 et seq., J. John Harris, III, and William L. Turner. 1991. "The Extende d African America n Family : A Pragmatic Strategy That Blunt s th e Blade of Injustice." Urban League Review 14:71.

Free, Marvin Davis , Jr. 1991. "Another Loo k at the Relationshi p between th e Broken Hom e an d Juvenile Delinquency." Societ y for th e Stud y o f Social Problems. Funiciello, Theresa. 1990 . "The Poverty Industry : Do Government an d Chari ties Create the Poor? " Ms. (November/December) . Furstenberg, Fran k F., Jr., and Andrew J. Cherlin. 1991. Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part. Cambridge: Harvard Universit y Press. Garfinkel, Irwin , an d Patrick Wong. 1990. "Child Suppor t an d Publi c Policy." I n Lone-Parent Families: The Economic Challenge, edite d by Elizabet h

1 8 7 / REFERENCE S

Duskin. Washington, D.C. : Organization fo r Economi c Co-operation an d Development Centre . Garfinkel, Irwin , and Sara S . McLanahan. 1986 . Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma. Washington , D.C. : Urban Institut e Press. Garfinkel, Irwin , Yin-Ling Wong, and Sar a S . McLanahan. 1993 . "SingleMother Familie s in Eight Countries : Economic Status an d Socia l Policy." Social Science Review (June) . . 1994. "Child Suppor t Orders : A Perspective o n Reform , I n the Futur e of Children/ ' Children and Divorce 84. Gilbert, Luci a A., and Vicki Rachlin. 1987. "Mental Healt h an d Psychologica l Functioning o f Dual-Career Families. " Counseling Psychologist 15:7 . Gongla, Patrici a A. 1982. "Single Parent Families : A Look at Families of Moth ers and Children. " I n Alternatives to Traditional Family Living, edite d b y Harriet Gros s and Martin B . Sussman. Ne w York: The Haworth Press . Gottman, Juli e Schwartz. 1989. "Children o f Gay and Lesbian Parents. " Marriage and Family Review 14:34 . Graham, Hilary . 1987. "Being Poor: Perceptions an d Copin g Strategies o f Lon e Mothers." In Give and Take in Families: Studies in Resource Distribution, edited by Julia Brannen an d Gail Wilson. London: Allen an d Unwin . Greif, Geoffrey L . 1985. Single Fathers. Lexington, Mass. : Lexington Books . Guttman, Joseph . 1989. "The Divorced Father : A Review of the Issue s and th e Research." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 20:247 . Hamner, Tommi e J., and Pauline H . Turner. 1985. Parenting in Contemporary Society. Englewood Cliffs , N.J. : Prentice-Hall. Handler, Joel . 1994. "Ending Welfare A s We Know It: A Wrong an d Perniciou s Idea." Presented a t Law and Societ y Annual Convention , Phoenix , Arizon a (on file with th e Harvard Women's Law Journal). Handler, Joel, and Y Hasenfeld . 1991 . The Moral Construction of Poverty: Welfare Reform in America. Newbur y Park : Sage Publications. Harris, Cheryl I . 1993. "Whiteness a s Property." Harvard Law Review 106:1707.

Harris, Kathleen Mullan . 1993 . "Work an d Welfare amon g Singl e Mothers i n Poverty." American Journal of Sociology 99:317 . Hartmann, Heid i I., Patricia A. Roos, and Donald J. Treiman. 1985. "An Agenda for Basi c Research on Comparable Worth." In Comparable Worth: New Directions for Research, edite d by Heid i I . Hartmann. Washington , D.C. : National Academy Press . Hawthorne, Nathaniel , 1850 . The Scarlet Letter. New York: W. W. Norton. Heath, Phylli s A., and Kathleen Cavanaugh . 1993 . "Divorced Mother' s Gende r Role Ideology, Locus of Control , an d Disciplinary Patterns. " Sex Roles: A Journal of Research (December ) 781:29 .

l88/

REFERENCE S

Hill, Robert Bernard . 1971 . The Strengths of Black Families. New York: Emerson Hal l Publishers . Hilton, Jeanne M., an d Virginia A. Haldeman. 1991 . "Gender Difference s i n the Performance o f Household Task s by Adults and Childre n i n Single-Par ent an d Two-Parent, Two-Earne r Families/ ' Journal of Family Issues 12:114.

Hochschild, Arlie . 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolt. New York: Viking. Hogan, Denni s P. , Ling-Xin Hao , and William L . Parish. 1990. "Race, Kin, Net works, and Assistance t o Mother-Headed Families. " Social Forces (March ) 68:797. Holden, Kare n C , an d Pamel a J. Smock. 1991. "The Economi c Costs of Marita l Dissolution: Why D o Women Bea r a Disproportionate Cost? " Annual Review of Sociology 17:51 . Holmes, Gilbert A. 1994. "The Tie That Binds : The Constitutiona l Righ t of Children t o Maintain Relationship s wit h Parent-Lik e Individuals. " Maryland Law Review 53:358 . House Report 4 . 1995. 104th Congress , 1st Sessio n (Jun e 11). Jacobsen, R . Brooke, and Jerry J. Binger. 1991. "Black Versus White Singl e Par ents and the Value of Children. " Journal of Black Studies 21:302 . Jaff, Jennifer . 1988 . "Wedding Bell Blues: The Position o f Unmarried Peopl e in American Law. " Arizona Law Review 30:201 . Jehl, Douglas. 1992. "Quayle Deplore s Erodin g Values: Cites TV Show." Los Angeles Times (Ma y 20 ) sec. A. Jencks, Christopher. 1992 . "Hold Of f o n Welfare Change. " Christian Science Monitor (Novembe r 16) . Jones, Jacqueline. 1985. Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work, and the Family from Slavery to Present. Ne w York: Basic Books. Kamerman, Sheil a B., and Alfred J . Kahn. 1988. Mothers Alone: Strategies for a Time of Change. Dover, Mass. : Auburn Hous e Publishing . Kaus, Mickey. 1986. "The Work Ethic State: The Only Way to Break the Cul ture o f Poverty. " New Republic (Jul y 7). Kay, Herma H . 1987. "Equality an d Difference: A Perspective o n No-Faul t Divorce and It s Aftermath." University of Cincinnati Law Review 56:1. Kessler-Harris, Alice. 1982. Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States. Ne w York: Oxford Universit y Press . King, Jeanne. 1995. "Judge Tells Wealthy Dad to Pay Child Support. " Reuters North American Wire Service. (August 18) . Kissman, Kris . 1991. "Feminist Base d Socia l Work with Singl e Parent Families. " Families in Society: Journal of Contemporary Human Services 23.

189 / REFERENCE S Kittay, Eva Feder. 1995. "Taking Dependency Seriously : The Famil y and Medi cal Leave Act Considere d i n Ligh t of the Socia l Organization o f Depen dency Work and Gender Equality/ ' Hypatia 10:7 . Krause, Harry D. 1990. Family Law: Cases, Comments and Questions, thir d edi tion. S t Paul, Minn.: West Publishin g Company . Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford : Clarendo n Press . Lerner, Gerda . 1986. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford Universit y Press. Leslie, Leigh A., Elaine A. Anderson, an d Meredith P . Branson. 1991. "Responsibility fo r Children : The Role of Gender and Employment/' Journal of Family Issues 12:197. Lewis, Edith A. 1989. "Role Strai n i n African-American Women : The Efficac y of Suppor t Networks/ ' Journal of Black Studies 20:155 . Li, Jiang Hong, and Roge r A. Wojtkiewicz. 1992. "A New Look at the Effect s o f Family Structur e o n Statu s Attainment/' Social Science Quarterly 73 . Lino, Mark. 1994 . "Income an d Spendin g Pattern s o f Singl e Mother Families. " Monthly Labor Review (May) . Littleton, Christin e A. 1987. "Equality an d Feminis t Lega l Theory." University of Pittsburgh Law Review 48:1043 . Lupu, Ira C . 1994. "The Separatio n o f Power s and the Protectio n o f Children. " University of Chicago Law Review 61:1317 . Maccoby, Eleano r E. , and Rober t H . Mnookin. 1992 . Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody. Cambridge : Harvard Universit y Press . Maclean, Mavis . 1990. "Lone-Parent Families , Family La w and Incom e Transfers." I n Lone-Parent Families: The Economic Challenge, edite d by Eliza beth Duskin . Washington, D.C. : Organization fo r Economi c Co-operatio n and Development Centre . Mahoney, Martha . 1991 . "Legal Images of Battered Women : Redefining th e Issue of Separation. " Michigan Law Review 90:1 . Malin, M . 1994. "Fathers an d Parenta l Leave. " Texas Law Review 72:1047 . Malson, Michelen e R . 1986. "Understanding Blac k Single Parent Families : Stresses an d Strengths. " The Ston e Center , Wellesley College , Work in Progress No . 25. Marks, Nadine E , and Sar a S . McLanahan. 1993 . "Gender, Famil y Structure , and Socia l Support Among Parents. " Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:481. McCaffery Edwar d J. 1993d. "Slouchin g toward s Equality : Gender Discrimina tion, Marke t Efficienc y an d Socia l Change." Yale Law Journal 103:595. . 1993b. "Taxation an d the Family : A Fresh Loo k at Behavorial Biase s in the Code. " University of California at Los Angeles Law Review 40:983 .

1 9 0 / REFERENCE S

McCormick, Harve y L . 1995. Social Security Claims and Procedures. Fourth edition pocke t part. St . Paul, Minn.: West Publishing . McKenry, Patric k C , an d Mark A. Fine. 1993. "Parenting Followin g Divorce: A Comparison o f Black and White Singl e Mothers/' Journal of Comparative Family Studies 24 . McLanahan, Sara , and Karen Booth . 1989. "Mother-Only Families : Problems, Prospects an d Politics/' Journal of Marriage and the Family 55J. McLanahan, Sara , and Gary Sandefur . 1994 . Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard Universit y Press . McLoyd, Vonnie C, an d Leon Wilson. 1990 . "Maternal Behavior , Socia l Support, an d Economic Conditions a s Predictors of Distress in Children/ ' New Directions for Child Development 46:49 . McLoyd, Vonnie C, Tob y Epstein Jayaratne, Rosari o Ceballo, and Julio Borquez. 1994. "Unemployment an d Work Interruption amon g African Amer ican Singl e Mothers: Effects o n Parentin g an d Adolescent Socioemotiona l Functioning." New Directions for Child Development 65:562. Mead, Lawrenc e M. 1988. "Jobs for th e Welfare Poor : Work Requirements Ca n Overcome th e Barriers." Heritage Foundation Policy Review (Winter ) 60 . Measell, Richar d F . 1992. "The Impact o f Comin g fro m a Single Parent House hold on the Labo r Forc e Plans of Colleg e Females : Some Economic and Counseling Implications. " Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 18:219 . Mednick, Martha . 1987 . "Single Mothers: A Review and Critiqu e o f Curren t Research." Applied Social Psychology Annual 7:184 . Meucci, Sandra. 1992. "The Moral Contex t o f Welfare Mothers : A Study of U.S. Welfare Refor m i n the i98o , s." Critical Social Policy 12:52. Meyer, Danie l R. , and Steve n Garasky . 1993. "Custodial Fathers : Myths, Reali ties, and Chil d Suppor t Policy. " Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:73 . Millar, Jane. 1989. Poverty and the Lone-Parent: The Challenge to Social Policy. Brookfield, Vt. : Gower Publishing . Minow, Martha . 1986 . "Rights fo r th e Nex t Generation : A Feminist Approac h to Children' s Rights. " Harvard Women's Law Journal 9:1. . 1991. "The Fre e Exercise of Families." University of Illinois Law Review 1991:925 . . 1994. "The Welfare o f Singl e Mothers an d Their Children. " Connecticut Law Review 26:871 . Mnookin, Rober t H. , Eleanor E . Maccoby, Catherin e R . Albiston, an d Charlen e E. Depner. 1990. "Private Orderin g Revisited : What Custodia l Arrange ments Are Parents Negotiating?" In Divorce Reform At the Crossroads, edited by Stephe n D . Sugarman an d Herma H . Kay. New Haven, Conn. : Yale University Press . "Mother Win s Custod y afte r Losin g It Because of Daycare." 1995. The Tennessean (Novembe r 9).

1 9 1 / REFERENCE S

Mott, Fran k L. 1994. "Sons, Daughters an d Fathers ' Absence: Differentials i n Father-Leaving Probabilitie s an d in Home Environments/ ' Journal of Family Issues 15:97. Moynihan, Danie l P. 1988. "Forward." I n Welfare Reform: Consensus or Conflict? edited by James S. Denton. Lanham , Md. : University Pres s of America. . 1994. "The Tangle of Pathology." I n The Black Family: Essays and Studies, 3r d edition, edite d by Rober t Staples . Belmont, Calif. : Wadsworth Publishing. Mulhall, Stephen , an d Adam Swift . 1992 . Liberals and Communitarians. Ox ford: Blackwel l Publishers . Murray, Charles . 1993. "The Comin g White Underclass. " Wall Street Journal (October 29). . 1995. "On Welfare , A Worse Sky Is Falling." New York Times (Novem ber 16 ) A24. National Researc h Council . 1990. Who Cares for America's Children? 27. . 1991. Work and Family. 31 . Nichols-Casebolt, Ann , an d Irwin Garfinkel . 1991 . "Trends in Paternity Adjudi cations and Chil d Suppor t Awards. Social Science Quarterly 72:83 . Norton, Arthur J. , and Pau l C. Click. 1986. "One Paren t Families : A Social and Economic Profile." Family Relations 35:9 . Note. 1990. "The Chil d Suppor t Enforcemen t Provision s o f the Famil y Suppor t Act of 1988." Journal of Legislation 16:191 . . 1991. "Looking for a Family Resemblance : The Limits of the Func tional Approach t o the Lega l Definition o f Family. " Harvard Law Review 104:1640.

O'Connell, Mar y E . 1993. "On th e Fringe : Rethinking th e Lin k between Wage s and Benefits." Tulane Law Review 67:1421 . Olson, Myra R. , and Judith A. Haynes. 1993. "Successful Singl e Parents." Families in Society 74:259 . Olson, Shery l L. , Elizabeth Kieschnick , Victori a Banyard , an d Rosari o Ceballo . 1994. "Socioenvironmental an d Individua l Correlate s o f Psychological Ad justments i n Low-Incom e Singl e Mothers." American Journal Orthopsychiat. (April ) 64. Omnibus Budge t Reconciliatio n Ac t of 1993 , 42 U.S.C. S666. Parker, Louise . 1994. "The Rol e of Workplace Suppor t i n Facilitatin g Self-Suffi ciency among Singl e Mothers o n Welfare." Family Relations 43:168 . Pearson, Jessica, and Nancy Thoennes . 1988. "Supporting Childre n afte r Di vorce: The Influence o f Custod y o n Suppor t Level s and Payments." Family Law Quarterly 22:319 . Peters, Marie F . 1981. "The Sol o Mother." I n Black Families, edited by Harriet t Pipes McAdoo. Beverly Hills : Sage Publications.

1 9 2 / REFERENCE S

Pettit, Jeffrey R . 1993. "Help! We've Fallen and We Can't Ge t Up: The Problems Familie s Fac e Because of Employment-Base d Healt h Insurance. " Vanderbilt Law Review 46:779 . Polakow, Valerie. 1993. Lives on the Edge: Single Mothers and Their Children in the Other America. Chicago : University o f Chicag o Press. Polatnick, M . Rivka. 1984. "Why Me n Don' t Rea r Children : A Power Analy sis." In Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory, edited by Joyce Trebilcot. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman an d Allanheld . Polikoff, Nanc y D . 1982. "Why Mother s Are Losing: A Brief Analysi s of Crite ria Used in Chil d Custod y Determinations. " Women's Rights Legal Reporter 7:235 . Popenoe, David. 1988. Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies. New York: Aldine d e Gruyter . Posner, Hon . Richar d A. 1989. "Conservative Feminism. " University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989:191. Rawlings, Steve W. 1994. U.S. Department of Commerce, Series P-20, No. 477 Household and Family Characteristics March 299 3 xv:xviii. Renwick, Trudi , and Barbara R . Bergmann. 1993 . "A Budget-Based Definitio n of Poverty with a n Application t o Single-Paren t Families. " Journal of Human Resources 28:1. Rexroat, Cynthia . 1990 . "Race and Marital Statu s Differences i n the Labo r Force Behavior o f Femal e Family Heads: The Effect o f Household Struc ture." Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:591 . Rhode, Deborah. 1988 . "Occupational Inequality. " Duke Law Journal 1988:1207.

. 1992. "Sexual Harassment. " Southern California Law Review 65:1459. . 1993. The Politics of Pregnancy: Adolescent Sexuality and Public Policy, edited by Annette Lawson . New Haven, Conn. : Yale University Press . . 1994. "Feminism an d the State. " Harvard Law Review 107:1181 . Rich, Adrienne C . 1986, Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Ne w York: Norton. Risman, Barbar a J. 1986. "Can Me n 'Mother' ? Lif e as a Single Father." Family Relations 35:95 . Roberts, Dorothy E . 1991. "Punishing Dru g Addicts Who Hav e Babies." Harvard Law Review 104:1421 . . 1994. "The Value of Black Mothers' Work." Connecticut Law Review 26:871. Roberts, Paula. 1991. "Child Suppor t Enforcement : A n Introduction. " Clearinghouse Review (November) . Robson, Rut h Ann . 1994 . "Resisting the Family : Repositioning Lesbian s in Legal Theory." Signs 19:975.

1 9 3 / REFERENCE S

Rodman, Hyman , an d Constantin a Safilios-Rothschild . 1984 . "Weak Links in Men's Worker-Earner Roles : A Descriptive Model/ ' I n Family and Work: Comparative Convergences, edited by Merli n B . Brinkerhoff. Westport , Conn.: Greenwood Press . Rosenthal, Andrew. 1992. "After th e Riots : Quayle Say s Riots Sprang fro m Lack of Family Values/' New York Times (Ma y 20 ) sec. A. Rosenthal, Marguerit e G . 1994. "Single Mothers i n Sweden : Work and Welfar e in the Welfare State. " Social Work 39:270 . Russell, C. Denise, and Jon G. Ellis. 1991. "Sex-Role Development i n Singl e Parent Households. " Social Behavior and Personality 19:5 . Saluter, Arlene F . 1989. Singleness in America, Studies in Marriage and the Family. Washington, D.C. : United States : Bureau o f Commerce , Bureau of Census Serie s P-23, No. 162. Sanik, Margare t Mietus , and Teresa Mauldin. 1986 . "Single Versus Two Parent Families: A Comparison o f Mother's Time. " Family Relations 34:53 . Schamess, Gerald. 1990 . "Toward an Understanding o f the Etiolog y and Treat ment o f Psychological Dysfunctio n amon g Singl e Teenage Mothers: Part I, A Review of the Literature. " Smith College Studies in Social Work 60:153. Schultz, Vicki. 1990. "Telling Stories about Women an d Work: Judicial Interpre tations o f Se x Segregation i n the Workplace i n Title VII Case s Raising th e Lack of Interest Argument." Harvard Law Review 103:1749 . Segal, David. 1992. "Motherload." The Washington Monthly (October ) 31. Siegal, Michael. 1985. Children, Parenthood, and Social Welfare in the Context of Developmental Psychology. Ne w York: Oxford Universit y Press . Sigel, Irving E. et al. 1984. "Psychological Perspective s o f the Family. " Review of Child Development Research 42. Simons, Ronald L. , Les B. Whitbeck, an d Ran d D. Conqer. 1990. "Husband an d Wife Difference s i n Determinants o f Parenting: A Social Learning and Exchange Model of Parental Behavior. " Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:375Singer, Jana B. 1992. "The Privatizatio n o f Famil y Law. " Wisconsin Law Review 1992:1443 . . 1993. "Divorce Obligation s an d Bankruptcy Discharge : Rethinking th e Support/Property Distinction " Harvard Journal on Legislation 30:43 . Snyder, Margare t C . 1991. "Letters o n Poverty : Growth o f Mother Centere d Families." New York Times (Decembe r 28) . . 1992. "Socialization fo r Womanhood : A Sex-role Analysis." In Feminist Perspectives in Therapy: An Empowerment Model for Women, edite d by Judith Worel l and Pa m Remer . Chichester , N.Y. : Wiley. Social Security Bulletin. 1983 . 46:5. Spencer, Margaret Beale . 1988. "Self-Concept Development. " I n Black Children and Poverty, A Developmental Perspective New Directions for Child Development, edite d by D. T. Slaughter. Sa n Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

194 / REFERENCE S Stacey, Judith. 1994. "The New Family Values Crusaders." The Nation (July 25). Stack, Caro l B. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. Ne w York: Harper an d Row. Stanfield, Rochell e L. 1994. "Bridging the Gap. " National Journal (Januar y 15) . Starnes, Cynthia . 1993 . "Divorce and the Displaced Homemaker : A Discours e on Playing with Dolls , Partnership Buyout s an d Dissociation unde r No Fault." University of Chicago Law Review 60:67 . Steinbach, Alice. 1995. "Career vs. Children: Women Fac e Difficult Choice ; Custody Wars." Baltimore Sun (Marc h 13). Stier, Max . 1992. "Corruption o f Blood and Equal Protection: Why Sin s of th e Parents Shoul d No t Matter. " Stanford Law Review 44:725 . Stolba, Andrea, an d Paul R. Amato. 1993. "Extended Single-Paren t Household s and Children' s Behavior. " Sociological Quarterly 34:543 . Strauss, David A. 1989. "Discriminatory Inten t and the Taming of Brown." University of Chicago Law Review 56:935 . Sugarman, Steve n D . 1993. "Reforming Welfar e throug h Socia l Security." University of Michigan Journal of Law Review 26:817 . . 1995. "Financial Suppor t o f Childre n an d the End of Welfare A s We Know It" (unpublishe d pape r presented a t the University o f Virginia Col lege of Law). Taylor, Charles. 1994. "The Politics of Recognition." In Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, edite d by Amy Gutmann . Princeton , N.J. : Princeton Universit y Press . Taylor, Robert Joseph, Lind a M. Chatters, M. Belinda Tucker, and Edith Lewis. 1990. "Development s i n Research o n Black Families: A Decade Review." Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:1001 . "Teen Pregnanc y Study , Dads Often Older. " 1995 . Times Picayune (Septem ber 12). Thomas, Susa n L . 1994. "From th e Cultur e o f Poverty t o the Cultur e o f Singl e Motherhood: The New Poverty Paradigm. " Woman and Politics 14:65. Thompson, Linda , and Alexis J. Walker. 1989. "Gender i n Families : Women an d Men i n Marriage, Work, an d Parenthood." Journal of Marriage and Family 51:845. Turner, Rebecca A., et al. 1991. "Family Structure , Famil y Processes, and Experimenting with Substance s durin g Adolescence." Journal of Research on Adolescence 1:93. Uniform Parentag e Act §4.1973. Van Buren, Abigal. 1995a. "Dea r Abby" Gainesville Sun (Augus t 15) . . 1995b. "Dear Abby." Gainesville Sun (October 2) .

195 / REFERENCE S Vogejda, Barbara . 1992. "Single Parents ' Double Bind: Multi-Generationa l Households Nee d Help with Economics , Chil d Care. " Washington Post (April 26). Vosler, Nancy R. , and Enola Proctor. 1991 . "Family Structur e an d Stressor s i n a Child Guidance Clini c Population." Families in Society 72:164 . Wagner, Rolan d M. 1993. "Psychosocial Adjustments durin g the Firs t Year of Single Parenthood: A Comparison o f Mexican-American an d Angl o Women." Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 19:121 . Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books. Ward, Cynthi a V . 1994. "A Kinder, Gentler Liberalism ? Visions of Empath y i n Feminist an d Communitaria n Literature. " University of Chicago Law Review 61:929 . Warshak, Richar d A. 1986. "Father-Custody an d Chil d Development: A Review and Analysis o f Psychological Research. " Behavioral Sciences and the Law 4:185. Washington, Valora . 1988. "Historical an d Contemporar y Linkage s betwee n Black Child Development an d Socia l Policy." In Black Children and Poverty, A Developmental Perspective: New Directions for Child Development, edite d by D. T. Slaughter. Sa n Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wattenberg, Esther. 1993. "Paternity Actions and Young Fathers." In Young Unwed Fathers: Changing Roles and Emerging Policies, edite d by Rober t Ler man an d Theodora Ooms . Philadelphia: Temple University Press . Watts, David S., and Karen M . Watts. 1991. "The Impact of Female-Heade d Sin gle Parent Families on Academic Achievement." Journal of Divorce and Remarriage ij:97Weisner, Thomas S. , Helen Gamier , an d James Loucky. 1994. "Domestic Tasks, Gender Egalitaria n Value s and Children' s Gende r Typin g in Conventiona l and Nonconventional Families. " Sex Roles 30:23 . Weitzman, Lenor e J. 1981. "The Economic s of Divorce: Social and Economi c Consequences o f Property , Alimony an d Child Suppor t Awards." University of California at Los Angeles Law Review 28:1181 . . 1985. The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America. Ne w York: The Free Press. Weitzman, Lenor e J., and Rut h B . Dixon. 1979. "Child Custod y Awards: Legal Standards an d Empirica l Pattern s fo r Chil d Custody , Suppor t an d Visita tion afte r Divorce. " University of California at Davis Law Review 12:471 . White, Lucie E. 1993. "No Exit: Rethinking Welfare Dependenc y fro m a Differ ent Ground. " Georgetown Law Journal 81:1961 . Williams, Joan. 1989. "Deconstructing Gender. " Michigan Law Review Sy.jyy.

196 / REFERENCE S Williams, Joan. 1991. "Gender Wars: Selfless Wome n i n the Republi c of Choice/' New York University Law Review 66:1559. Williams, Lucy A. 1992. "The Ideology o f Division: Behavior Modificatio n Wel fare Refor m Proposals/ ' Yale Law Journal 102:719. Williams, Victoria Schwartz , an d Rober t G . Williams. 1989. "Identifyin g Daddy: The Role of the Court s in Establishing Paternity. " Judges' Journal 28:2.

Wolf, Susan. 1994. "Comment." I n Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, edite d by Amy Gutmann . Princeton , N.J. : Princeton Univer sity Press . Woodhouse, Barbara Bennett . 1993 . "Hatching th e Egg : A Child-Centered Per spective on Parents ' Rights. " Cardoza Law Review 14:1746 . Wright-Carozza, Paolo . 1993. "Organic Goods: Legal Understandings o f Work, Parenthood, an d Gender Equalit y in Comparativ e Perspective. " California Law Review 81:531 . Younger, Judith T. 1992. "Light Thought s an d Night Thought s o n the Ameri can Family. " Minnesota Law Review 76:891 .

CASES Allen v. Eichler. 1990 . No. 89A-FE-4, W.L. 58223 (Del . Super. Ct . April 3). Andrews v. Drew Municipal Separate School District. 1975 . 507 F.2d 611. Asdourian v. Ogden Food Service. 1987. 816 F.2d 6j8. Bowers v. Hardwick. 1986 . 478 U.S. 186. Brown v. Board of Education. 1954 . 347 U.S. 483. Caban v. Mohammed. 1979 . 441 U.S. 380. Cameron v. Board of Education. 1991 . 795 F.Supp. 228. Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club. 1987. 834 F.2d 697. Clark v. Hamilton Community Schools. 1985. WL 383 Slip Opinion (N.D . Ind.) Constant A. v. Paul C.A. 1985. 496 A.2d 1. Dandridge v. Williams. 1970 . 397 U.S. 471 . DeBoer v. Schmidt (In re Clausen). 1993 . 502 N.W.2d 649. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. 1989. 489 U.S. 189. Eckmann v. Board of Education. 1986 . 636 F.Supp. 1214. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972. 405 U.S. 438. G.A. v. D.A. 1987. 745 S.W.2d 726. Grayson v. Wickes. 1979. 607 F.2d 1194. Griswold v. Connecticut. 1965 . 381 U.S. 479.

197 / REFERENCE S Gubernat v. Deremer. 1995.140 N.J . 120. Harvey v. YWCA. 1982. 533 F.Supp. 949. In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W. 1995. 658 So.2d 961. In re Kirchner. 1995. 649 N.E.2d 324. Jacobsen v. Jacobsen. 1981. 314 N.W.2d 78. Lalli v. Lalli. 1978. 439 U.S. 259. Lehr v. Robinson. 1983 . 463 U.S. 248. Lewis v. Delaware State College. 1978. 455 F.Supp. 239. Little v. Streater. 1981 . 452 U.S. 1. Loving v. Virginia. 1967 . 388 U.S. 87. Maynard v. Hill. 1988. 125 U.S. 190. Michael H. v. Gerald D. 1989. 491 U.S. 110. Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone. 1970. 433 F.2d 421. Parris v. Parris. 1995. 460 S.E.2d 571. Perry v. Grenada Municipal Separate School District. 1969 . 300 F.Supp. 748. Pfeifer v. Marion Center Area School District. 1988 . 700 F.Supp. 269. Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 1925 . 268 U.S. 510. Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 1992. 112 S. Ct. 2791. Prost v. Greene. 1995. 652 A.2d 621. Roberts v. United States Jaycees. 1984. 468 U.S. 609. Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113. S. v. S. 1980. 608 S.W.2d 64. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. 1973 . 411 U.S. 1. Shull v. Columbus Municipal Separate School District. 1972. 338 F.Supp. 1376. Skinner v. Oklahoma. 1942 . 316 U.S. 535. Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform. 1977 . 431 U.S. 816. Terre v. Boraas. 1974. 416 U.S. 1. White v. Thompson. 1990 . 569 So.2d 1181. Wyman v. James. 1971. 400 U.S. 309.

Index

Adoption, 8-9 . See also Bab y Emil y Aid t o Familie s wit h Dependen t Chil dren (AFDC) , 23-25 , 46 , 74-76 ; an d paternity, 95-101 , 3 n. 7 Alimony, 63-6 4 Baby Emily , 1 1 Black singl e mothers , 104-8 ; devalua tion of , 86-8 8 Brown, Murphy , 9 , 1 0 Communitarianism, 4 , 16 3 Critical pluralism , 16 3 Deadbeat dads , 11-1 3 Divorce, 60-63 ; caregivin g o f childre n after, 66-70 ; financia l consequence s of, 63-66 . See also Employment , an d divorce Doulia, 32 , 2 n. 6

199

Employment: an d divorce , 70-74 ; an d family conflicts , 56-6 0 Family an d Medica l Leav e Ac t o f 1993 , 70-71, 3 n. 6 Family Suppor t Ac t o f 1988 , 2 3 Fathers: absenc e of , 50-51 ; afte r di vorce, 67-69 ; nee d for , 27-39 ; nurtur ing thei r children , 50-51 ; single , 1 0 13; visitatio n by , 62 . See also Dead beat dad s Family an d Medica l Leav e Ac t o f 1993 , 7-71, 3 n. 6 Gays an d lesbians , 51 , 2 nn. 17 , 1 8 Gubernat Alan , 11-1 2 Homosexual parents , 51 . See also Gay s and lesbian s

200 / INDE X Illegitimacy: historica l overview , 89-92 ; and inheritanc e rights , 90-91 ; an d the Suprem e Court , 151-5 2 "Immorality" o f mothers , 39-4 4 Moynihan Report , 1 0 National Commissio n o n Children , 1 8 Omnibus Budge t Reconciliatio n Ac t o f 1993 (OBRA) , 94-9 5 Paternity, 80-81 , 92-9 8 Personal Responsibilit y Act , 3 Poverty, 18-27 . $ ee a ^so Suprem e Court, an d povert y Privacy Doctrine , 167-6 9 Prost, Sharon , 6-j Roberts, Dorothy , 86-87 , 168-6 9 Sex-Role developmen t i n children , 3 6 38

Social Security , 23 , 97-98 ; a s a mode l for non-marita l famil y support , 134 38 Support network s fo r singl e parents , 113-14 Supreme Court : an d chil d abuse , 148 ; and education , 149-50 ; an d family , 154; an d paternity , 151-52 ; an d pov erty, 7 n. 1 , 149-5 1 Swedish mode l o f famil y support , 1 4 3 45 Teenagers, 8 , 43-44 ; ne w polic y regard ing, 142-43 ; a s singl e parents , 83-8 4 Uniform Parentag e Act , 9 7 Welfare, 23-25 ; an d divorce , 74-76 ; an d non-marital singl e parents , 98-102 . See also Ai d t o Familie s wit h Depen dent Childre n