Digest #2: Psychologists Take Controversial Stand on Gender and Custody

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.