As the problems of the family and fatherless children continue to intensify throughout the world, a new idea is emerging in some advanced democracies. Italy last year enacted a law giving children the benefit of both parents after separation or divorce, and Australia passed a similar law at about the same time. In the United States, the District of Columbia has a strong shared parenting law, and other states are now debating the issue.

Virtually every social pathology of our time — from violent crime to substance abuse to truancy — correlates more strongly to fatherless homes than to any other single factor, surpassing poverty and race. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative in the United States, “Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional, and behavioural problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behaviour than those who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.”

These problems seem to be especially acute in the English-speaking world. A study recently released by UNICEF ranked the top 21 wealthiest countries in the world on their children’s well being. The United States and Britain received the worst rankings, with divorce and the number of children raised in single-parent households cited as major risk factors. This is true of most countries where English is the first language spoken.

In Bermuda, visible symptoms of social breakdown include gang culture, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse and drug trafficking, failing educational levels, and the growing prison population with a high rate of re-offence.

What is causing this? We know what is not causing it. Contrary to some less-than-forthright politicians, such as American presidential candidate Barack Obama and British Conservative Party Leader David Cameron, there is no evidence that the crisis of fathers and families is caused by fathers abandoning their children, abusing their children, or beating their wives. Family courts, assisted by social services agencies and other government authorities, routinely take children away from fathers (and sometimes mothers) who have done nothing legally wrong and for reasons that have nothing to do with the children’s wishes, safety, health, or welfare. Most abuse of children takes place in homes without fathers.

Today in Bermuda, America, Britain, and other democracies, citizens who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing, find themselves summoned to court, stripped of their children, and even subject to criminal proceedings, not for recognised public crimes, but for how they conduct their private lives.

The adversarial litigation approach, with its winner-take-all mentality of resolving family disputes inflames the conflict and turns children into weapons. Shared parenting would put an end to all these conflicts. The ugly custody battles that now fill the newspapers and chat shows — like the unseemly Alec Baldwin spat — would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated.

Here in Bermuda, the Hon. Dale Butler, Minister for Social Rehabilitation, and his counterpart in the opposition, the Hon. Suzann Holshouser, along with other ministers and MPs in both parties, have expressed support for shared parenting.

According to Richard A. Gardner, M.D., in his book, “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (1985, p. 47 & 48)>Judge Lindsley (1976) is critical of the adversary system, saying “ The adversary system process, historically effective in resolving disputes between litigants over contracts, business matters and criminal charges—is not properly suited to the resolution of most family relations problems—. It is destructive to the welfare, best interest, and emotional health of their children, and rips father, mother and child apart so thoroughly and bitterly.” In addition, Richard A. Gardner, (p. 48). Attorney S.J. Berger states (1985) that we as a society “have been humane enough to have outlawed cock fights, dog fights, bull fights; and yet we do nothing about the barbarism of divorce fighting— We cheer and encourage lawyers to emotionally beat up and abuse two innocent people and their children because their marriage has floundered.”

Currently, fathers who apply for shared parenting are denied. Further, since the Parental Responsibility Act in 2003, fathers are summoned to court, confronted with their children’s misbehaviour, and told to deal with their out-of-control children years after they have had no say or any influence in their children’s upbringing. Alienated parents (usually fathers) must be permitted to be involved on a continuing basis in the lives of their children to head off these problems before they arise.

Allowing children the love and guidance of both parents has been shown to produce more balanced, better-adjusted children who create fewer problems to society. Economic costs in terms of police enforcement, court cases, child and family service personnel involvement, detention and incarceration, academic failure and retention of children are common among families where both parents are not involved in the parenting process. A rebuttable presumption of shared parenting would de-escalate the conflict and be a win-win situation for parents, children, taxpayers and society.Edward Tavares is—co-founder and treasurer of ChildWatch Bermuda.

Stephen Baskerville, PhD, is president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson168.html), will be published in July by Cumberland House Publishing.