Birth registration: a proposal to increase the expectation on unmarried fathers to sign a birth certificate by (rather gently!) setting joint . . . → Read More: The fight for more equal sharing of parenting responsibilities is on]]>

There are three policy proposals on the table at the moment, put there by Government, current and previous. They all change the way fatherhood is constructed in UK law and policy.

Birth registration: a proposal to increase the expectation on unmarried fathers to sign a birth certificate by (rather gently!) setting joint registration as the default for unmarried parents as it is for married parents. The change was proposed by the previous Government and is in the Welfare Reform Act, but the current Government has refused to enact it.

Leave entitlements: a proposal to make it possible for mothers to share more of their maternity leave with their partners if the family wants to. This proposal was in the Queens’ Speech this month.

Separating parents: a proposal to make explicit in law the value of a continuing relationship between a child and both parents where contact with them is safe. This was also in the Queen’s Speech.

These are rather mild, nevertheless serious changes that go to the heart of the matter. Such laws help to communicate a set of values, reflecting widespread public opinion and acting beyond the immediate circumstances to which they apply. Yet there is a spirited lobby against all three proposals. The pressure on Government to back track will be enormous and there is a very real risk that the two new proposals in the Queen’s speech will go the same way as birth registration.

The opposition to all three measures is the same – dire consequences for women and children:

• In the case of birth registration, informing mothers that the default is for both parents to be on the birth certificate would open the way to abuse of some vulnerable women by their partners.

• In the case of maternity leave, it would result in employers illegally pressuring women to give up their maternity leave.

• In the case of separation, it would lead to courts awarding contact to dangerous fathers.

These concerns have rightly been seriously and meticulously considered – those who raise the concerns are serious people whose position demands respect. Yet in every case, the conclusion is the same – there is no evidence of these possible consequences. They don’t happen in countries where the proposed arrangements are already in place (which is very many countries). The dangers are purely hypothetical.

I wrote a book about how difficult it is to share parenting responsibilities in the home, Baby’s Here! How Does What? and I concluded that the main barrier to sharing of responsibilities is the difficulty for both mothers and fathers to relinquish their designated sphere of leadership – mothers tend to feel guilty if they are not the primary carer and fathers tend to feel inadequate if they are not the primary earner. Perhaps the same dynamic operates in the public domain?

Dire and unfounded warnings of what might happen if the status quo is changed has bad consequences. It stops us from seeing the benefits of change – how sharing of responsibilities can lead to numerous better outcomes for women and children, including the vulnerable (and, this way round, there is a great deal of evidence). If we saw these advantages, the cost of keeping the status quo would start to be more of a worry. It also distracts us from the important task of looking at what really is a risk to vulnerable mothers and children – we need to be constantly exercised on this front.

We must defend the changes proposed in the Queen’s Speech, with rational argument based on evidence.  We owe it to mothers, to children, and to fathers.

The recent discussion, Motherhood vs. Feminism, in the New York Times’ Motherlode Blog, demonstrates to perfection the blindness to father-child attachment that blankets the western debate about parenting. For all five parenting experts who start the debate, there is no such thing as father-child attachment. The perception of . . . → Read More: Motherhood vs. Feminism – a false debate]]>

Parenting minus the fathers

The recent discussion, Motherhood vs. Feminism, in the New York Times’ Motherlode Blog, demonstrates to perfection the blindness to father-child attachment that blankets the western debate about parenting. For all five parenting experts who start the debate, there is no such thing as father-child attachment. The perception of the utter difference between mothers and fathers when it comes to parenting will inevitably generate a perpetual debate about motherhood and feminism.

Mayim Bialik describes “attachment parenting” only in relation to mothers. La Shaun Williams proposes that the pressure to work only applies to mothers and then proposes that the working role is only the husband’s – no pressure, then, on fathers! Heather McDonald states “being a mother is part of what you are” but has nothing to say about what being a father is like. Erica Jong states “some mothers can afford helpers, but many can’t” and harks back to when grandparents could take on caring roles – no role for fathers in her world. Annie Urban exclaims against patriarchy, arguing fathers are essential, but only so that mothers can bond with their babies.

None of these experts has talked to fathers to find out what fatherhood is like; if they did, they would see things that the current paradigm renders invisible. I am sure they don’t mean to offend, but their statements certainly feel offensive to me because they deny the biggest reality of my life.

But the lack of any connection between their world and my experience is not enough – perhaps I am a special case. Actually I thought I was when we had our first baby, and millions of fathers still think they are too. But happily not – what we are experiencing is universal and quintessentially and gloriously human – just absent from the narrative about parenting.

The science of father-child attachment is well researched and adequately understood. Proximity to pregnant mothers and babies changes a man’s hormones. The more exposure to babies a man has, the quicker his hormones change on encountering another baby – more hands-on fathers become more highly attuned to caring. These are powerful instincts – for many men the strongest feelings they ever experience. (Before we get too excited, humans are not unique in this regard – similar hormonal changes take place in male blackbirds, for example!) Meanwhile, babies are adapted to multiple parenting – they attach multiply and those who do so, get on better. Babies have extraordinary abilities to attract adults in to love them – our tendency to gather round to coo over a newborn is a salient characteristic of the human race. Anthropologists such as Sara Hrdy, author of Mothers and Others, a seminal study of motherhood, have looked at the collective nature of human parenting and have found an answer to the astonishing success of our species. Human babies are very “expensive” to raise – it takes ages and it is very difficult too; babies require social nurturing as well as physical to survive. Mothers have never in all of history been able to care for their young alone. Fathers have done so much parenting in the last 200,000 years that we have evolved – we are hard wired to love and care for our babies and children and our hormones make it feel like falling in love. Modern fatherhood is not modern at all – it is an adjustment back to normality after an aberration brought about by the industrial revolution and the separation of work and home and of male and female labour.

Once we understand that human parenting is fundamentally collective exercise and that both mothers and fathers are biologically wired to attach and that babies need multiple attachment, then the debate about motherhood and feminism is transformed. It is no longer the case that only mothers are responsible for children, it is no longer the case that work is a problem only for mothers, mothers no longer need “help”, they need partnership. Fathers cannot escape any of the expectations that are currently applied only to mothers.

And, to conclude with my own contribution to the debate about attachment parenting. I think it is a great concept – it worked for me. But I cannot bear reading about it, because those who preach it deny my experience entirely and being a parent is difficult enough without that.

Here is a proposed answer to the question all advocates for supporting fatherhood are asking themselves – why are we failing to such an extent?

There is an ice-berg that sinks nearly every programme that supports fatherhood. It is a fundamental and . . . → Read More: Why, despite all the talk, are we failing to support fatherhood?]]>

The modern village to raise a child? Fathers not included.

Here is a proposed answer to the question all advocates for supporting fatherhood are asking themselves – why are we failing to such an extent?

There is an ice-berg that sinks nearly every programme that supports fatherhood. It is a fundamental and difficult difference of view that we have not talked about openly.

The fundamental rationale of most family services is to support mothers to be the sole carer in their own family – services provide support and companionship with parenting (a fundamental need in human parenting which is collective by nature), they provide support with finding work, and they provide childcare. The premise is that fathers are providing nothing; instead, the service itself provides all the functions of a family. Services are the village to raise the child.

But supporting fatherhood requires a different premise – the support of collaborative parenting within the (actual) family. So supporting fatherhood is actually about how we engage with mothers. And that simply does not fit into most family services. And so all those who work to support fatherhood have the experience that they are rolling a ball up the hill the whole time – one blink and the ball is back at the bottom of the hill, year after year after year.

I am not sure about this argument. I hope that if I am off the mark friends will tell me!

It is time for a campaign that makes it impossible for family services simply to drop engaging . . . → Read More: Time for a new fatherhood campaign: high expectations]]>

I have come back to the field of fatherhood after a break. I have given myself six months before allowing a reaction, but now it is time. I am shocked at how the agenda has stagnated.

It is time for a campaign that makes it impossible for family services simply to drop engaging with fathers, without a whisper of protest or even a comment. My hunch is that well over 90% of services for families with young children – services that are so critical in supporting the early father-child bond – have given up making an effort to engage with fathers, even though the idea of a “whole family” approach is very much in vogue.

The root of the problem is low expectations of fathers, deeply embedded in our services and policies. This may have less impact on self-sufficient, well-resourced and self-confident fathers who are used to getting what they want out of the system; but it has a substantial impact on the less confident father with fewer resources, whose children are more dependent on his positive contribution.

Our expectations of fathers affect how we behave towards them and how they see themselves. The article from which I took the diagram above, Use the Pygmalion effect to create a high performing team, starts by looking at the enormous impact different expectations have on children and then applies it to management, giving very interesting insights into how much we influence fatherhood by our own expectations.

[The Pygmalion effect:] When managers have high expectations of their team members, they tend to pay more attention to them, give them more context and set more ambitious goals for them. In addition, their high expectations are constantly communicated in subtle non-verbal cues, such as body language, facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice, etc. (Researchers have found that as much as 70% of communication is non-verbal.) Human beings are remarkably skilled at consciously and unconsciously receiving these subtle, non-verbal signals of others’ feelings and expectations about them. These cues then alter the way people see themselves and what they believe is expected of them. Leaders who believe in the potential of their team members bring out the best in their people by helping them believe in themselves, constantly challenging them to grow and supporting them along the way.

[The Golem effect:] Too often, managers have the exact opposite effect on their people; they are quick to judge and label a team member as an underperformer. They then relate to them with low expectations, and ‘prove’ themselves right when the employee delivers poor performance. The managers then pat themselves on the back for their astute judgment of people’s innate abilities and then go on labelling other underperformers, continuing the cycle. This reverse Pygmalion Effect has come to be known as the Golem Effect. If you’re one of those managers, I invite you to ask yourself, “would you rather be ‘right’ or maximize your chance of success?”

In USA, when midwives learned and used the names of young fathers during their partner’s pregnancy, the fathers went on to pay more child support. If you do not bother to learn and use someone’s name, it is received as a most basic expression of zero expectation. What is so interesting about this example is the immediate impact that a higher expectation makes. Fathers of all ages and in all social groups have high aspirations to be good fathers. These aspirations are an enormous resource for children, untapped in so many families. The key to unlocking this resource is high expectation.

If we had high expectations of fathers to be active, competent and confident parents, what would be different from the way things are now?

We would regard it as essential to do all we can to prepare expectant fathers during pregnancy.

We would find it unacceptable if a father did not sign a birth certificate, just as we find it unacceptable if a mother does not.

We would ensure fathers have time to develop skills and confidence in babycare so that they bond early and for life. We would accept that this means some compromise with work, as the father, like the mother, invests in raising the workforce of tomorrow.

We would ensure that all services working with disadvantaged families make a particular effort to engage with fathers, just as they engage with mothers.

We would find it intolerable how many separated fathers lose a relationship with their children and make every effort to change the system that creates this outcome.

Our low expectations of fathers damage children. We cannot continue doing this. We must change.

I read an article in Children’s England Outlook magazine this week. I attended their conference in Manchester on Thursday. Written by Alice Cook, Senior Family . . . → Read More: Human attachment is not the same as chimpanzee attachment]]>

It is time to make the case: human attachment is different from chimpanzee attachment. I am going to take my first step to challenge this near universal belief.

I read an article in Children’s England Outlook magazine this week. I attended their conference in Manchester on Thursday. Written by Alice Cook, Senior Family Support Worker at Surrey County Council, it addressed the issue of how supporting attachment can tackle neglect, Combating Neglect Using the Principles of Attachment Theory. It is good to see the growing focus on parental neglect, in large part brought about by the leadership of Action for Children.

The entire article talks about a single child-parent attachment and refers only to “the parent” and once to “the mother”.

The understanding of multiple attachment that has emerged in modern attachment research (e.g. at the Tavistock Institute) and in anthropology (e.g. Sarah Hrdy, Mothers & Others) is absolutely zero in the field. The belief that babies have a single paramount attachment to mothers – like chimpanzees – is absolutely universal, an article of faith. We are not chimpanzees – and the explanation of the many rather significant differences between our species can largely be explained by the fact that we attach differently.

It is time to do something. So I have written to colleagues to propose a short briefing by some world experts on how multiple attachment works and what it does for child development. Next time I read an article like this, I will be able to send the author a piece that is informative, helpful and enlightening. It is mad that I have not done this already – this has been bugging me for years!

Earlier this month in North Wales, a mother died just after giving birth. She was not married to the father, though he was declared in the maternity records as the father. Afterwards, the father was not allowed to take the baby home until social workers had visited and gone to a court . . . → Read More: Why is an unmarried father treated as a stranger to his baby if the mother dies in childbirth?]]>

Earlier this month in North Wales, a mother died just after giving birth. She was not married to the father, though he was declared in the maternity records as the father. Afterwards, the father was not allowed to take the baby home until social workers had visited and gone to a court to apply to a magistrate to have him recognised as the baby’s father. He was not allowed to sign the birth certificate as the father – only as someone who witnessed the birth.

How can this happen?

In UK law, a father can only be a father if the mother approves him. She can do this in two ways – marry him or invite him to sign the birth certificate. If neither of these happens, he is not the father until the family court approves him. A man has to be vetted by the mother or the state before he is allowed to be a father.

A few years ago, the Government wanted to amend this principle of law, by creating an expectation of joint birth registration. Where this didn’t happen, mothers would be asked to name the child’s father on the birth certificate, unless there were good reasons not to do so; and fathers would have the right to request that their name be added to the birth certificate. (If there was any dispute over paternity, the mother would need to confirm if he was the father or name the man who was.)

During a long period of research and drafting by civil servants, the proposals were strongly opposed by a lobby of children’s and women’s organisations on the grounds that any change would be an invitation to violent men to abuse their partners. The civil servants undertook their own research and were not persuaded that there was evidence for this assertion. Indeed, they found the opposite – children are better off when expectations on unmarried fathers are higher and more positive.

The proposed change was included in the Welfare Reform Bill – the most significant policy change proposed by the last Government in relation to fatherhood because it touched on the legal foundations.

But whilst it was incorporated into the Welfare Reform Act, the incoming coalition Government decided not to enact this aspect of the new legislation. So it remains the case that fatherhood is in effect ‘in the gift’ of mothers – to be conferred either by her decision to marry the man in question, or have him sign the birth certificate. If neither happens, fathers have no automatic legal status.

In the North Wales case, because the baby’s mother – his only legally recognised parent – had died, the child protection system was invoked and applied to the grieving father. It was as if he were a total stranger requesting to take the baby away – something to which the maternity unit staff could clearly not agree. There was nothing illogical about what happened there – it was a coherent expression of the law.

The magistrate acted quickly, despite the complications of it being a weekend. He could see that it was absurd and cruel to consider this a child protection issue, and after a grueling eight-hour wait during which a compassionate, committed midwife stayed with the father at the hospital, granted him a temporary residence order so that he could go home with his baby. Within a week the court had granted him Parental Responsibility.

The midwife who sat with the father through this ordeal has vowed not to let this situation pass without challenge, and the Fatherhood Institute has committed itself to taking up the issue.

This Institute remains of the view that joint birth registration must happen, with the scenario foreseen that it may only be an unmarried father who is signing the birth certificate. To prepare for this scenario, one possible change could be to ensure that maternity records, as a matter of course, declare who an unmarried father is – and that where necessary, this record be deemed proof of paternity so that the father is able to sign the birth certificate. The Department of Health could specify when and how the name and contact details of the father, married or unmarried, should be entered on the mother’s care plan. This would require administrative changes in some settings.

The fundamental issue comes down to this: are fathers to be considered by default in law as an alien and a potential threat to their children until vetted, or treated in the same way that mothers are – a parent and a benefit to their children until there is strong evidence to suggest otherwise?

Post written jointly with Jeremy Davies at the Fatherhood Institute.