(c) Landbote, February 28, 2011, Karin Landolt.
Many divorced fathers feel disadvantaged and are fighting for joint custody. The fact that the corresponding legal revision is being delayed again angers them. But how justified are the fathers' concerns, really?
The "Send a Stone" campaign has apparently backfired spectacularly. According to sources in her anteroom, only three stones had arrived at Federal Councillor Sommaruga's office by last week. Much ado about a few isolated cases in the custody dispute?
Oliver Hunziker: It's interesting what you've learned. We did indeed send 500 stones to the Federal Parliament Building, and another 900 were ordered by our members and supporters. However, we halted the delivery because the Federal Parliament Building became very nervous after the first shipment. We decided to present Ms. Sommaruga with the collected letters along with five stones, symbolically representing the 1,400 stones. The condition was that she engage in dialogue with us. She did so surprisingly quickly. In April, we will be sitting at a roundtable with other organizations and helping to move forward with joint custody as the norm. Our campaign was a complete success. The three stones mentioned by the Federal Parliament Building were presumably sent directly by individuals, independently of one another.
So Sommaruga has already charmed you? Convening a roundtable will hardly speed up the implementation of the bill.
She pleasantly surprised us. We had prepared ourselves for weeks of vigils on Bundesplatz, and she showed up on the very first day. She was very open, genuinely moved by our cause, and invited us men's organizations to join the discussion. A fair offer, I think. I don't feel like she was trying to pull the wool over my eyes, but rather that she was taking me seriously.
Do you believe that with your somewhat sympathetic action you have achieved more than the "anti-feminists" who also strongly address the issue of custody?
Since I started fighting for custody, I've pursued a more pragmatic approach and disagree with the methods of the "antifeminists." I have absolutely no time for their polemics. We don't want a battle of the sexes, but rather a collaborative search for good solutions. Sending paving stones is certainly a powerful symbol, but we're not being aggressive in any way; that's never been my style and never will be.
In the sometimes aggressive custody battles of bitter men, one gets the feeling that ex-wives are generally malicious people…
… a ridiculous attitude …
…and furthermore, a woman is responsible for the political dossier. Does that scare men?
Not the men in my circle. We simply observe that our system disadvantages divorced fathers and unfairly benefits mothers. This isn't to say that women are evil. It's the system that offers loopholes; a woman can exploit them, a man can't. Which by no means implies that all women do.
Which loopholes are you referring to?
If a man wants custody after a divorce, he depends on his ex-wife's consent. Even if a father has solid, well-founded arguments, it's enough for the wife to simply say that it's not true, and his application is dismissed. Guardianship authorities, legal representatives, and judges give the mother's opinion considerable weight, while the father is not taken seriously. During my divorce seven years ago, I wanted to have my children with me often, but I didn't achieve my goal. The fact that I still received joint custody is only thanks to the fact that my ex-wife ultimately didn't stand in my way. Had she wanted to, I would have had no say. In that respect, I personally got off relatively lightly. Many fathers have a much harder time.
But that's also because, in most cases, it's the mother who takes more intensive care of the children before the separation. It's understandable that her opinions carry more weight.
That's correct. And yet it's a fallacy, because it no longer reflects the reality that a woman's predetermined destiny is motherhood. Today, she can freely choose whether she wants to stay at home or work…
It's not quite that simple, though, as it's precisely the working mother (and not the father) who is expected to stay home when a child is sick. And that's just one of many everyday examples.
Absolutely clear. The willingness of fathers to participate is indeed not yet very high, which is alarming. But the real problem lies with the system and employers. Even after separation, the father is forced into the breadwinner role, while the mother is similarly forced into her role as a mother. Both are wrong. My firm opinion is: everything must be renegotiated upon separation, both child custody and financial arrangements.
This will be difficult for women who have withdrawn from professional life for years in favor of their children.
But there are fewer and fewer of these women. I practically don't know any women anymore who don't maintain at least one foot in the professional world. And they are also highly educated these days.
While there are increasingly more involved fathers, they are still in the minority. Shouldn't there also be a loud appeal – from the men's perspective – to those fathers who don't do enough to care for their children?
We do that, but we're primarily in contact with fathers going through divorce. Many only become aware of their role as fathers – unfortunately – in this new situation. Admittedly, that's late. And yet, they've learned something and are ready to change themselves and their role. Is it right for the system to tell them, "Sorry, too late, tough luck"? I think that's terrible. They want to take responsibility for their children, and they're not allowed to.
The ex-wife could have used the support during the relationship. Perhaps this lack of support was also a reason for the separation?
Of course, I'm not saying that fathers do everything right. But it's important to me that today's custody and visitation rights don't hurt the stereotypical father who never cared for his children and moves to the other side of Switzerland with a 20-year-old after a divorce. But it's the children whose fathers want to do things differently and be real fathers who suffer.
Divorced fathers complain that they are drained down to the bare minimum after the divorce. That's very one-sided. It's always the mothers who have to go to the welfare office when money is tight.
At least they have the option of going to the social welfare office and receiving the necessary financial compensation, even if it's somewhat humiliating. The money is simply lacking, for both the father and the mother. The solution, however, must work for both of them. Many legal experts argue that the question of custody should not be linked to the question of child support payments; the two issues should be addressed separately. But the Federal Council is now delaying the new custody legislation due to unresolved questions regarding child support payments.
Is the law even necessary anymore? Already, 40 percent of divorced parents opt for joint custody without legal requirement, and the figure is even higher for unmarried couples. A large number of mothers clearly support your cause.
I'm pleased with this development. Is a law necessary? Yes and no. Laws aren't made for the majority of society, who already abide by common rules. Laws are needed for those who don't. A law sets the standard; in the case of custody, the standard is that both parents are and remain responsible for their children.
There are many women who don't believe you that a law suddenly produces better fathers.
Lawyers have the saying "The law follows society," but also the reverse: "Society follows the law." Legislators can send out messages that are followed by that part of society that needs guidelines. Regarding speed limits on the highway, two-thirds of drivers adhere to a maximum of 120 km/h without the need for signs, while 10 percent drive faster and remain unmoved even by 100 signs. But we can reach the remaining 30 percent with legal messages, and that's what matters. The same applies to child custody. There will always be parents who fight at the expense of their children, regardless of the law, but there are others who want to abide by the law.
Both opponents and proponents of joint custody as the norm often use the term "child welfare" when it serves their argument. There is no clear legal definition for it. What do you understand by child welfare?
I prefer the French term "Le bienêtre de l'enfant" (the child's well-being). It's about the child's right to be cared for by both parents. Joint custody is therefore a right that isn't for fathers or mothers, but for the child.