Contributed by David Vesper, The Alaska Fathers' Rights Movement
Many fathers run away from certain types of mothers because it would be a losing battle to deal with them. The crazier the mother, the farther away the father will go because he knows society just will not believe him. He understands that women can get away with things that men cannot. Some fathers will run to avoid trouble.
Then... you see a case where the mother is ticked off. She will call him names in front of their child. Gain their empathy because she is now all alone. All the while, she is programming the children to hate their father.
So, when the father thinks things have calmed down and tries to come back, the mother will display this gatekeeper mentality by denying him visitation. After all, the attention is back on her now. So, she is trying to advance her cause among her social circle by displaying herself as the savior of her children.
Meanwhile, the father understands the situation has not changed and may either leave for good or try to make up for time lost with his child. He accepts the fact the mother will not change her attitude.
Now, the mother seeks social affirmation in order to justify her actions towards the father. Girlfriends and white knight guy friends will come to the rescue because this father's name has been dragged through the mud. The mother’s support system would go to great lengths to support the custodial interference by the mother to the father.
After a while, the mother senses victory against the father and celebrates her achievement. She continues to get the support and is, therefore, able to establish the “single mother” role that is championed by society. She celebrates both Mother's Day and Father's Day. She goes onto social media taunting the tough lifestyle of single parenting... even following single mother Facebook pages and posting their memes. The mother would even take credit for every achievement earned by the child. Every feature, look and activity of the child is because of the “single mother” role that allowed her to overcome the odds. She may even interview for a “new” dad for her next relationship while, at the same time, tell her children that their “real” daddy doesn't love them anymore.
The father, either legally or socially, is basically banned from becoming a part his child's life. So, he leaves again and again. After all, who would want to endure that emotional and psychological abuse? He may go on with his life, remarry and have more children of his own. He believes that his oldest child is better off without him because the child is emotionally conditioned to believe whatever the mother and her circle have said about him. To abandon the toxic relationship with the mother, the father feels compelled to abandon the child as well.
If child support is involved, it usually means that the transfer of wealth from one parent to another as an exercise of control for the recipient and submission for the other. Control then alienates the father more from his own child. If he has not paid child support, he is now a deadbeat dad. Yet, you and I do not know if he could afford the payments. He is already paying for everything you need to sustain a home and his lawyer's fees, her lawyer fees, court administrative costs and court-ordered training. Many times, the father is in the arrears before the first payment is in effect because payments are retroactive to the time the mother filed.
Now, he realizes that he cannot afford this and maintain a house. He falls further behind. All the while, his ex is calling him a deadbeat. Now, the state gets involved and takes away his license and certifications. He can't perform at his job. He is now fired. His credit is ruined. He went from a six-figure salary to bankruptcy and facing jail time. So, when we see a “deadbeat dad”, can he afford it?
If domestic violence was alleged, it becomes the silver bullet tactic that would legally shut the father out of his child's life for good. In Alaska, we have more incentives for “victims” to claim abuse on a “perpetrator” without recourse and due process many times. Now, the father has a history for which the violence may have been reciprocated. But, we will never know who the perpetrator or victim was. All that matters in Alaska is the person requesting a protective order is automatically the “victim” and the accused is the “perpetrator”. But, he doesn't file because who will believe him? He cannot even go to a domestic violence shelter himself in Alaska. But, she filed. She is now the “victim” in the relationship. He is now stereotyped.
Regardless of how the custodial interference occurred, the negative ramifications are the same: The child suffers most of all.
So, when we hear of deadbeat dads and perpetrators... Was that the whole truth? Was it worth destroying someone else's life to make one person justified in their actions?