(c) Landbote February 28, 2011, Karin Landolt
Many divorced fathers feel disadvantaged and fight for joint custody. The fact that the corresponding revision of the law has been delayed again makes them angry. But how justified are the fathers' concerns actually?
The “
Schick en Stei ” campaign has apparently gone quite awry. As of last week, Federal Councilor Sommaruga had only received three stones, as can be heard from her anteroom. Much fuss about a few individual cases in the custody dispute? Oliver Hunziker : What you learned is exciting. We actually sent 500 stones to the Federal Palace, and another 900 were ordered by our members and sympathizers. But we interrupted the delivery because people in the Federal Palace became very nervous after the first load. We decided to present the collected letters with five stones to Ms. Sommaruga instead, symbolizing the 1400 stones. The condition was that she start a conversation with us. She did this surprisingly quickly. In April we will sit at a round table together with other organizations and help ensure that joint custody becomes the norm. Our campaign was a complete success. The three stones mentioned by the Federal Palace were probably sent directly by individuals independently.
So Sommaruga has already soaped you up? The bill will hardly be implemented more quickly if a round table is convened.
She surprised us positively. We had prepared ourselves for weeks of vigils on the Bundesplatz, and she showed up with us on the first day. She was very open, genuinely touched by our concerns and invited us men's organizations into the discussion. A fair offer, I think. I don't feel soapy, but rather taken seriously.
Do you think you have achieved more with your somewhat sympathetic campaign than the “anti-feminists” who also focus heavily on the issue of custody?
Since I started fighting for the custody issue, I have taken a more pragmatic approach and disagree with the approach of the “anti-feminists”. I don't think anything of their polemics. We don't want a battle between the sexes, but rather cooperation in finding good solutions. Sending paving stones is also a very powerful symbol, but we are not aggressive by an inch, that has never been my signature and never will be.
In the sometimes aggressive custody battle between bitter men, you get the feeling that ex-wives are generally malicious people...
...a stupid attitude...
... in addition, a woman is responsible for the political dossier. Does this scare men?
Not the men around me. We simply recognize that in our system there are disadvantages for divorced fathers and unjustified advantages for mothers. I'm not saying that women are evil. It's the system that offers loopholes, a woman can take advantage of it, a man can't. Which doesn't mean that all women do this.
Which loopholes do you mean?
If a man wants custody after the divorce, he has to rely on his ex-wife's yes.
If a father even has solid, broadly based arguments, it is enough for the woman to say that that is not true. And his proposal is off the table. Guardianship authorities, guardians and judges give the mother's opinion a lot of weight, while the father is not taken seriously. When I got divorced 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. If she had wanted this, I would have had nothing more to say. In this respect, I personally came out relatively well. Many fathers face a harder fate.
But this also has to do with the fact that in most cases it is the mother who takes more intensive care of the children before the separation. It is understandable that their opinions carry more weight.
That's right. And yet it is a mistake in thinking because today it no longer corresponds to the fact that the predetermined destiny of a woman is the role of mother. Today she can freely choose whether she wants to stay at home or work...
But it's not quite that simple, as working mothers (and not fathers) are expected to stay at home when a child is sick. And that is just one of many examples from everyday life.
Completely clear. The willingness of fathers is actually not that great yet, which makes us sit up and take notice. But above all, the willingness of the system and employers is lacking. Even after the separation, the father is forced into the role of breadwinner, while the mother is also forced into her role as mother. Both are wrong. My firm opinion is that when you separate, everything has to be renegotiated, both the care and the financing.
This becomes difficult for women who have withdrawn from working life for years in order to have children.
But these women are becoming fewer and fewer. I practically don't know any woman anymore who doesn't keep one foot in the professional world. They are also well trained today.
Although there are more and more committed fathers, they are still in the minority. Shouldn't we also appeal loudly - from the men's side - to fathers who don't care enough about looking after their children?
We do that, but we are primarily in contact with fathers in the divorce phase. Unfortunately, many people only become aware of their role as fathers in this new situation. This is late, admittedly. And yet they have learned something and are ready to change themselves and their role. Is it right for the system to tell them: “Sorry, too late, bad luck”? I think that's bad. They want to take responsibility for their children and they won't let them.
The ex-wife could have needed the support during the relationship. Maybe this lack of help was also a reason for the breakup?
Of course I'm not saying the fathers are doing everything right. But it is important to me that today's custody and custody arrangements do not hurt the classic cliche man who never cared about his children and moves to the other end of Switzerland with a 20-year-old after the divorce. But children whose fathers want to do things differently and want to be real fathers have to suffer.
Divorcing fathers complain that they are being reduced to the minimum subsistence level after the divorce. This is very one-sided. It's always the mothers who have to go to the social welfare office when the budget is tight.
At least they have the opportunity to go to the social welfare office and receive the necessary financial compensation, even if it is something degrading. The money is simply missing, both from the father and the mother. But the solution has to work for both. However, many lawyers say that the question of custody should not be linked to the question of maintenance payments; the two questions should be treated separately. But the Federal Council is now delaying the new custody legislation because of open questions regarding maintenance payments.
Is the law even necessary anymore? Already 40 percent of divorced parents decide to have joint custody without any legal requirement, and the number is even higher among cohabiting couples. A large number of mothers apparently support your cause.
I am pleased about this development. Whether a law is needed? Nope. Laws are not made for the majority of society, which adheres to common rules anyway. Laws are needed for those who don't do it. A law sets the standard; when it comes to custody, the standard is that both parents are and remain responsible for their children.
There are many women who won't believe you that a law will suddenly produce better fathers.
Lawyers have the phrase “The law follows society,” but also the converse: “Society follows the law.” Lawmakers can send messages that are followed by the part of society that needs guidelines. When speed control on the motorway, two thirds drive a maximum of 120 kilometers per hour without the need for signs, 10 percent drive faster and are not impressed by 100 signs. But we can get the remaining 30 percent with legal messages, and that's what it's all about. Also with custody. There will always be parents who fight on their children's shoulders regardless of the law, but there are others who want to be on good terms with the law.
Both opponents and supporters of joint custody as a rule often use the term “best interests of the child” when it serves their argument. There is no clear, legal definition for it. What do you understand by child welfare?
I like the French term “Le bienêtre de l'enfant” better. In any case, the point is that the child has the right to be cared for by both parents. Joint custody is therefore a right that is not made for fathers or mothers, but for the child.