I found the following article while browsing the internet. Reading this text, one would assume it is a current page from the VeV website.
This article actually appeared in Beobachter 25/1998 – almost 10 years ago! And nothing has changed since then!
Custody: Fathers on a losing battle
Ueli Zindel / Observer 25 / 98
In divorce cases, custody is almost always awarded to the mother. As a last resort, allegations of sexual abuse can be made in disputed cases. Because in court, the principle is: when in doubt, rule against the father.
"When we had a good time, it was incredibly good. We had the same taste. The same friends."
Roger Weber laughs: "The same arguments. Every day."
Seven years ago, Roger Weber divorced his wife. He hasn't seen his two daughters for five years.
Autumn 1991, Bülach District Court. Cold courtroom, frosty atmosphere. The four judges faced a difficult decision. Roger Weber, a businessman, and his wife had agreed that their children should not be separated during the divorce. They requested joint custody: an unusual arrangement. The judges deliberated, questioned the divorcing parties, and deliberated again. After five hours, the couple, married for eighteen years, was divorced. According to the ruling, the two daughters—ten and twelve years old—were initially supposed to live with their mother. However, it soon became clear that they would remain with their father. For almost a year, Roger Weber was "one hundred percent there for them." The children systematically refused contact with their mother. Weber's role as a stay-at-home dad didn't happen overnight. Years before the divorce, he had learned to iron, wash, and clean. He had reduced his business activities by 50 percent; and that's where it stayed for the time being. But stay-at-home dad Weber was uneasy about his daughters becoming estranged from his ex-wife. He asked the youth welfare office for help. There were also practical reasons: the double burden was becoming too much for the father. He was also paying double for the children – once, according to a court ruling, to his wife, and again for his own household. The authorities reassured Roger Weber, who was self-employed and received no unemployment benefits. By mid-1992, his business assets were depleted. Shortly afterward, he became very ill. He asked their mother to take the children. During this time, "something happened that I will probably never understand": After the holidays, both children – the older daughter was entering puberty – declared that they wanted to live with their mother from now on. "If I wanted to cook for them, they'd say their mother was making her favorite meal; they were too tired; there were exams tomorrow – who knows. Was I too strict with them? My house always had to be tidy..." His ex-wife didn't want the children to collect their belongings from their father. She bought them everything new. The authorities reassured Weber: There would need to be serious reasons to remove a father's parental rights. Weber's children no longer wanted to see their father. Weber accepted this, called occasionally, and didn't want to exert any pressure. This went on for a year. But one day, he rang their doorbell: "Spontaneously. It was a pivotal moment. They came to the window and said: 'Parental rights revoked' in early 1993." Weber's ex-wife sued to revoke his parental rights. The counterclaim and appeal dragged on for two and a half years. An expert witness wrote: "Although the older daughter can express herself well, she has difficulty explaining to us why she no longer wants to live with her father." The father was "in no way" suspected of any abuse. But on March 4, 1996, Roger Weber's parental rights were revoked: After two and a half years of litigation, without a lawyer, without money, he "simply no longer had the strength" to fight back. “I’m superfluous,” says Roger Weber – “and I don’t know why.” He last saw his daughters in 1993. Laws, feelings, agreements, violations: For outsiders, it’s difficult to identify “culprits” in separations. Often, many questions remain. Only this much is certain: The hurt is deep; responsibility is often forgotten. No doubt about it: The first victim is the child. Is there a right to one’s own father? What about the rights of fathers – once they’re divorced? Men are fighting back. “The Fatherless Society” is the title of a “non-fiction book” that was published this fall. Divorced fathers, we read in it, are “disenfranchised”; they are systematically “ripped off.” The blame lies with “feminist egoism.” The first chapter is titled: “Enough is enough!” “My book is a plea, an outburst of anger, a polemic,” says Matthias Matussek, the author. He says he received “suitcases full” of support, letters from estranged fathers—from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Letters that revealed “true abysses”: “These men are wounded in their identity. And when they complain, they are ridiculed.” “In the vast majority of divorce cases, contact with the children proceeds without problems,” says Vreni Schaller-Peter, a social worker at Pro Juventute. She specializes in supervised visitation rights. “A small percentage are extremely conflict-ridden; unfortunately, legal issues take center stage here.” The division of labor in modern marriage still follows traditional patterns. Judges rule accordingly. Are fathers disadvantaged in this regard? Vreni Schaller-Peter cautiously confirms: “The few fathers who have provided childcare feel very alone when conflicts arise.” "The defendant is entitled to have the children visit him or stay with him at his own expense on the first and third weekends of each month, as well as on the second day of the double holidays of Christmas and New Year's Day, and in even-numbered years from Easter Saturday to Easter Monday, and in odd-numbered years from Pentecost Saturday to Pentecost Monday." Mutual accusations: Kurt and Astrid B. met during their studies. Kurt's career progressed rapidly: at 37, he was already a professor of classical philology. In 1989, the couple gave up their apartment in Switzerland and moved with their two young children to Rome, where Kurt was working. For the father, this was a dream come true. Kurt was very busy with his assignments. His wife, however, was unhappy. "She couldn't make up her mind about many things. Whatever I decided was wrong." She explained that she had given up her studies because of him. He explained that this wasn't his problem. Both started new relationships. The accusations continued. After six years of marriage, it was clear: they wanted to separate. No Chance Before the Judge: The divorce decree was "okay" for Kurt B. But the disputes soon began. His ex-wife appealed the temporary custody order given to the father. When Kurt B. first tried to return the children to their mother, Astrid wasn't there at the agreed-upon time. The father had arranged the first vacation with his children months ago. The mother canceled it at the last minute. Astrid refused to contribute to the moving costs from Rome; she declared that Kurt wouldn't see the children until this matter was resolved. "Here and there," a meeting was arranged. But "we shouted at each other every time we handed the children over," the father says. He pressed the mother to inform him about his children's teachers, schedules, and visitation days—to no avail. The judge ruled in favor of the mother. Kurt B. learned from the daycare provider that his younger son was only attending school sporadically. “Astrid kept saying I was always quick to anger, that you couldn’t talk to me.” The youth services office strongly recommended couples therapy. Astrid missed the scheduled appointment. With the help of two social workers, Astrid and Kurt B. reached a Christmas arrangement in 1997. Astrid had vehemently insisted on being able to receive the children as early as 4 p.m. After four hours, the parents reached a written agreement. “Kurt will bring the children to their mother at 5 p.m.,” it stated. On Christmas Day, around noon, Astrid called Kurt – she unfortunately wouldn’t be home until 8 p.m. Visitation rights at his discretion. Kurt B. saw his children occasionally on weekends. The summer holidays, although agreed upon, never materialized. He immersed himself in his work. Sometimes he managed to speak to his daughter by phone. The mother said her son didn’t want to speak to him. Finally, he went back to court. “The defendant has a tendency,” he wrote, “to restrict court-ordered visitation rights at her own discretion.” The court did not grant the classical philologist the missed visitation days, nor the right to be informed about his children’s school-related details. “Fathers are powerless,” says Kurt B., “…as soon as the courts decide their fate.” A dry, toneless laugh follows. No. He is not doing well. “Excuse me? – Astrid? Neither is she.” His son, ten years old, is receiving psychiatric treatment. “The situation for fathers is not easy in such a case,” says Zurich divorce lawyer Erna Haueter. “However, many mothers experience it differently: namely, that the men only begin to take care of their own children once they are divorced. As soon as the threat of loss looms, they develop new energy.” “Children have a fundamental need for both parents,” says Bernhard Hasler, president of the association “Responsibly Raising Fathers” (VeV). Daily experience: “The existing divorce law usually produces one party who loses – and one who wins. These are poor conditions for contact with the child!” For Hasler, it is a “daily experience” that divorced fathers miss their children. The VeV also provides counseling services. Hasler sees the organization as “a contribution to equality – in the sense of shared responsibility.” He often sees children in connection with visitation rights issues as being like circus performers: “They balance back and forth between two camps – left alone, without a safety net: They have to deny feeling comfortable at the other end of the rope. It is a fallacy to think that the child will cope better with this back and forth if contact with the fathers is kept to a minimum.” The VeV (Association of Parents) is committed to helping the couple find a new way of communicating – not as former lovers, but on a rational level: as parents. Bernhard Hasler: "In conflict situations, it's often forgotten: children need fathers! Fathers forget this too." "Fathers are a biological necessity, but a social accident": This sentence concludes a new book about the father-child relationship. But the story, as one might suspect, is an old one. In patriarchal society, the father, as the master of creation, stood at the head of the extended family; the woman was his servant. Industrialization distanced the father from family life. The separation of home and workplace turned most men into what they often are today: part-time fathers. Mothers, sometimes overwhelmed, were responsible for the children's well-being; often enough, alone. Shocking statistics: The absence of fathers: This topic has occupied statisticians, social scientists, educators, theologians, and psychologists. Their conclusions are unanimous: A fatherless society endangers itself. A recent study from the USA—conducted by a woman—revealed alarming figures: Three-quarters of murderers, two-thirds of rapists, and a high percentage of all prison inmates grew up without a father in their home. Fatherlessness—numerous studies agree on this point—results in a loss of authority, the disappearance of role models, and often the triumph of indifference. Allegations of abuse: There are divorced fathers who no longer want to see their children; divorced fathers who leave them with friends on visitation weekends; divorced fathers who let their children sit in front of the television for evenings on end. The Observer counseling service is familiar with numerous such stories. But other "stories" exist as well. It is difficult to determine the majority. However, it certainly appears that fathers are increasingly involved in their children's lives. More and more men are present at the birth of their children. This moment, as studies prove, is crucial for the paternal bond. More and more fathers are attending infant classes; More and more people are reflecting on their responsibilities. Are judges and government agencies doing the same? One might sometimes doubt it. "Do you know a method for finding the truth? If so, please tell me, I'm ready immediately": This is a multi-page letter that Daniel K. wrote to the cantonal counseling center for children and young people on January 14th. "I can no longer endure this kind of psychological terror. I would bear the costs of a lie detector and a hypnotist. Please look after Chantal H. I'm afraid for my son." Daniel K., a 32-year-old sales representative, is the father of six-year-old Xavier. The mother, Chantal H., and Daniel K. had "grown apart" when the little boy was two. From then on, the father visited his son daily. Xavier spent almost every weekend with him. But in May 1995, the mother reported her son's "behavioral problems" to the cantonal counseling center; he often complained of "feet pain"; There was a suspicion of sexual abuse. The father's visitation rights were immediately revoked. A guardian was appointed for Xavier. K. hired a lawyer. A psychologist was commissioned to prepare an expert opinion. Shortly afterward, she advised that the father should no longer be left alone with the child. The guardianship office informed K.: "Supervised visitation can be granted to you on the first Sunday of the month from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the daycare center; you must notify the authorities in a timely manner if you intend to exercise this right." Three months later, K. inquired about the expert opinion. The guardianship authority explained that the specialist, who was also the mother's therapist, first needed to establish a relationship of trust with the child. After another three months, the guardianship authority learned that child psychiatric services could not simultaneously conduct therapy and provide expert opinions. The commission for the psychologist was withdrawn. During those six months, she had focused almost exclusively on the mother. She had only seen Xavier once. K.'s appeal against supervised visitation was rejected shortly afterward: necessary investigations had not yet been completed. K. wrote to the Department of Justice: "Why wasn't I questioned, as I requested?" He received no reply. In dubio pro reo (when in doubt, rule against the father). A second expert declined the assignment, stating that after so much time, she no longer felt confident in conducting a reliable assessment. Daniel K. saw Xavier irregularly. He hoped for clarification of the events. Over time, Chantal H. softened her accusation. She now tells the guardianship authorities that sexual acts "may never have" occurred. "The truth," writes another psychologist, "will hardly ever be fully ascertained retrospectively." She had conducted several interviews with the estranged parents. Despite the mother's new assessment, the guardianship authorities forbid the father from taking vacations with his son. “If you feel you are not being taken seriously enough,” the office wrote to Daniel K., “this is not necessarily objective due to your position as a party to the case.” Daniel K. then requested a psychological evaluation to prove his innocence. The guardianship authority rejected this request. K. received the rejection three months later. The reason given: reliable methods were “not known to science.” The cantonal Department of Justice ruled: “Even if it must remain open whether K. actually committed sexual acts against the child, the child’s mother cannot be expected to act against her concerns.” K. wrote to the guardianship authority in his municipality: “I no longer want to insist on my visitation rights; the little boy should not be intimidated. I don’t want to have any more conversations with Xavier’s mother as long as she still considers herself sane.” Shortly afterward, Chantal H. emphasized that Xavier needed his father; she acknowledged that he had “a good relationship” with his father; she wanted to “start over.” If necessary, a pornography charge. This changes abruptly after K. has his new girlfriend stay overnight. Chantal H. claims that Daniel produced pornographic films with Xavier. K. is arrested. His apartment is searched. The policewoman who questions Xavier pretends to be a friend of Chantal H. The operation yields nothing that could incriminate K. January 13, 1998. K., experiencing business difficulties, declares insolvency to the municipality and applies for an advance on child support. On the same day, the guardianship authority forbids the father from having any personal or telephone contact with his son. "If you have the courage to tell the truth," K. writes to the authority, "let me speak with him in your presence." He receives no reply. Something always sticks. In March 1998 – three years after the initial accusations – a credibility expert is consulted. She cannot confirm the mother's accusations. From Xavier's side, she writes, "no statements exist that could be used as evidence in criminal proceedings." Daniel K. writes in his diary at the beginning of May: "Brief conversation with Xavier at the Coop. No sign of him since." Marianne Heer is a public prosecutor in the canton of Lucerne. Such serious criminal charges often land on her desk. "The allegation of sexual abuse must be taken seriously in every case," she says. However, she observes "increasingly unfounded accusations" in divorce proceedings: "It's almost considered a breach of duty of care for a divorce lawyer today if they don't raise this allegation." An act of desperation? A mother's last resort to win back "her" child? In the canton of Zurich, over 40 percent of such charges could not be resolved. Alarmed by the number of unreported cases and certainly rightly on their guard, the social services authorities are often overwhelmed by the investigations. The evidence is difficult to obtain, the witnesses are unreliable – and innocent fathers are at a disadvantage in every case. Daniel K., it's clear, had no chance as the accused. "It's not just mothers who get pregnant – couples do!" This phrase comes from a German psychologist. The duration of a pregnancy is predictable; that of a relationship is not. What remains is the child. The new divorce law: In 2000, the new divorce law came into effect. Its main feature was the requirement to hear the child's side of the story. Under the existing law, judges and lawyers often decide on the "little" absentees: To this day, the children's placement is usually determined without even hearing from them. New from 2000: Both parents can apply for joint custody. That sounds good. However, if one party wants to prevent this, they can do so without giving a reason. A divorce is a capitulation, a farewell, a disappointment. Anyone who wants to make life difficult for the other parent afterward will still be able to do so under the new divorce law. Even if children are to be heard in the future, they are caught between the parties and an irresolvable conflict: between two people who are still their father and mother. Issues concerning children should not be left solely to lawyers. Mediation offers a promising alternative. In mediation, couples—with psychological support—relearn something they may have forgotten: how to talk to each other. The goal is to find an agreement outside of legal battles—for the sake of the children. This protects them from the petty and major conflicts that, while outwardly centered on the child, are in reality aimed at the former partner.