| Silverstein, L. &
Auerbach, C. (1999).
|
| Deconstructing the Essential Father.
|
| American Psychologist, 54, 397-407.
Silverstein and Auerbach make a compelling argument that neither mothers
nor fathers play a unique role in child-rearing.
While the authors certainly agree that two-parent families are preferred,
they make clear from the outset their belief that "parenting roles are
interchangeable, that neither mothers nor fathers are unique or essential, and that the
significant variables in predicting father involvement are economic rather than marital
(p. 399)." They extensively review the literature and conclude that the assumption
that mothers are more capable parents than fathers is not well supported and that the
psychological ability of the parent, not the parent's gender, should be the determining
factor when making best interest determinations. For example, very few significant
differences were found in the ways mothers and fathers treated children. They also note
that very little about the gender of the parents appears to be important in and of itself.
They conclude that, "Many divorced fathers cannot sustain a positive emotional
connection to their children after the legal system redefines their role from parenting to
visitation (p.404)."
ANALYSIS
The authors have written a highly controversial article for the flagship
journal of the American Psychological Association. It should not be surprising that this
article has created much debate and met with much criticism. Not all of this debate is
calm, reasoned or objective. While the scientific literature is seldom unanimous on any
complex issue, Silverstein and Auerbach's article will be the centerpiece in cases that
focus on gender issues in custody determination.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A testifying expert must be aware of the scientific literature showing
that mothers and fathers are essentially equal in their capacity to nurture and raise
healthy children. Those who ignore the research in favor of a particular political agenda
(or personal bias) fail in their role of providing objective scientific data for the
court. Such experts should not be relied upon and the scientific basis of their testimony
vigorously challenged. |
