You are probably familiar with the popular family sitcom Modern Family. This critically acclaimed series follows three interrelated families living in Los Angeles. Patriarch Jay Pritchett is on his second marriage to Gloria, a much younger Colombian with a son from a previous relationship. Jay’s son, Mitchell, an attorney, and his husband, Cameron, have an adopted daughter. Jay’s daughter, Claire, is a homemaker-turned-businesswoman. Claire and her husband, Phil, have three children. This hit show marks a sharp shift from the traditional family dynamic memorialized by the Cleavers of the 1950s and the Cunninghams of the 1950s (and 1970s) or even, to a certain extent, the Cosbys of the 1980s and Barones of the 1990s–2000s. Reflecting both complicated and nontraditional family dynamics in a fast-paced world, Modern Family reflects family life in the second decade of the twenty-first century, typified for many of us by financial and career pressures, too few minutes in the day, and conflicting expectations about what it really means to be a husband, wife, father, or mother. Adding to the chaos is the information overload from skyrocketing social media use, with more than 71% of Internet users maintaining social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and other platforms. One illustrative Modern Family episode, “Connection Lost,” presents the entire narrative through Claire’s laptop as she communicates with her family through FaceTime, iMessage, and other networking platforms.
There are many positive aspects to the way American society has evolved in the past 50 years. Modern women, like Claire, have more choices to make about the course of their lives, and they have gained many kinds of freedom. Perhaps the most important is economic: now earning their own paychecks and making their own decisions about how they want to live their lives, women no longer must depend on a man—be it father or husband—for food, clothing, and shelter. Women also have reproductive freedom; they are in full control of the decision when or whether to have children. Men have been challenged as well as a result of these changes: they are learning to express their feelings openly, share childrearing responsibilities, and accept women as their equals. It’s no coincidence that the divorce rate, relatively low in the 1950s, soared in the 1960s and 1970s. In the evolving, freer climate, and with the emphasis on the happiness of the individual as opposed to the good of society, both men and women have felt more open to questioning social and religious strictures about the permanence of marriage and what it means to be a family. Along with this has come acceptance of no-fault divorce and the notion that a marriage can be ended because the parties have stopped getting along or loving each other. No longer is it necessary to prove mental cruelty or conduct a smear campaign against a spouse to have a marriage legally dissolved.
Although most of these changes are for the better—in fact, as women practicing in traditionally male-dominated fields, we have benefited from many of them—Americans have not yet taken the appropriate steps to reshape society in such a way that most of these changes work more successfully. For example, although about 40% of the mothers in this country are now in the labor force—and 18% of these women have children younger than age 6—the government has taken little action to make day care more available, affordable, and safe. Even mothers and fathers in higher income brackets often cannot find acceptable or reliable care. And although no-fault divorce has certainly made it easier to escape a failed relationship, many custodial mothers and fathers are having a difficult time collecting adequate child support. Our family law system, too, has had difficulty keeping up with the rapid changes in family dynamics that include same-sex parents, stay-at-home dads, and blended families. The time has come to address these and related problems that undermine the future of children in this country. Although the family law courts in America are slowly becoming educated regarding custody and parenting time laws that fit the modern family, they, too, have been slow to change. The time has come to address these and related problems that undermine the future of children in this country.
What Price Freedom?
Tragically, one of the prices we are now paying for the gain in personal growth and expansion of life choices is the disintegration of the traditional family and the repercussions of divorce. Consider these statistics:
•
About 40%–50% of marriages end in divorce, and the divorce rate for second marriages is even higher (
Kennedy and Ruggles 2014).
•
Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12% of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared with 44% of children in mother-only families (
U.S. Census Bureau 2011).
•
The median income for families led by a single mother in 2017 was about $41,700, much less than the $90,380 median for married couples (
U.S. Census Bureau 2017).
These statistics leave no doubt that divorce is a serious social problem, but it is simplistic to think of divorce in good versus bad terms (a topic that is discussed further in
Chapter 2, “The Decision to Divorce”). Attitudes toward divorce have changed over time, depending on the needs of society. The first written divorce regulations appeared in the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. In many ancient societies, only the husband had the power to divorce his wife. When Christianity was established, its early teachers eliminated divorce, believing that marriage should be permanent until death. The result was not only family unity (regardless of the happiness of each family member) but also community stability. Today most Christian sects recognize divorce, at least when abuse or infidelity exist in the marriage. One exception is the Catholic church, which continues to maintain strict teachings against divorce and complicated guidelines on granting annulments. In many areas, however, the church sponsors outreach efforts aimed at divorced Catholics and their families.
We can now say that, for the most part, the pendulum has swung to the point where the good of each individual is important and worthy of consideration. And this trend has begun to include children, albeit much too slowly. It’s surprising to us in twenty-first-century America to realize that it wasn’t all that long ago that children were valued primarily in economic terms, an asset on the ledger sheet for the work they could perform to help support the family. If the family lived in a rural area, the children picked crops or worked in mines. If the family lived in the city, the children were hired out to work long hours in factories and shops for a pittance. Many children were abused or injured until a federal labor law was passed in 1938 placing strict limits on the use of child labor.
Today, some cynics might argue, children are being used in different, perhaps no less harmful, ways by divorcing parents who become pitted against each other, either by their own intentions or by the nature of this country’s adversarial legal system. Thus, trapped in a tug-of-war between their parents, children have often been treated much the same as the family’s washer and dryer: Who gets to keep them? Mom or Dad?