Many fathers do not see their own children, and the system that is supposed to facilitate equality between the sexes favours the mother. MannsForum works for real equality between the sexes. Research shows that fathers matter greatly for children’s development and their mental health.
Between 12 and 17 per cent of fathers almost never see their children when they do not live with them. That is 50 000 men, and even more children, according to Øivind Østberg. He is a lawyer and leader of MannsForum.
-The figures have been stable over the years, he says.
According to Østberg the proportion of men who are marginalised is fairly constant. Something which indicates that the system neither sets limits nor actively works to lower the number of fathers who do not get to see their children.
On the contrary the authorities facilitate that the mother is the primary parent, while fathers must fight to obtain contact time.
On 21 March this year Østberg became leader of MannsForum, an organisation that works for equality and equal worth between the sexes. They regard it as their particular task to fight for the rights of boys and men.
When the Children Act was amended
The Children Act was amended in January 2020. Fathers’ rights were to be strengthened by their also receiving a share of parental responsibility if they did not live with the mother at the time of birth.
As Minister of Children and Equality in the Solberg government Solveig Horne secured several changes that were to ensure equality between the sexes.
But it required no more than an application to the Tax Administration (Skattetaten) from the mother’s side for her to obtain parental responsibility alone. No examination of the father’s suitability, only an application within the child’s first year.
Limited improvement
-The changes in the Children Act were a very limited improvement, says Øivind Østberg. -For the requirement was that joint parental responsibility should apply unconditionally as the point of departure. It was diluted, reduced through the bureaucratic process.
A result of influence from strong women’s organisations, he considers.
-So one got the outcome where in reality it is free for the mother to choose whether she shall have parental responsibility alone. Provided one observes the deadline of one year.
But this is only one of the ways in which women can take from men time with, and responsibility for, their own children.
The father can be ‘squeezed out’
-The worst is the way fathers are affected at the breakdown of cohabitation, fathers who have actually lived together with mother and child. Very often the mother takes the initiative to the breakdown of cohabitation, and the father can be left without daily care of the child.
-In the best case it can become shared care, which is good. But if there is a dispute, and the mother will not agree to it, the father has very small chances of obtaining anything other than ‘contact status’.
-Even that can of course be livable if it functions well. But in many situations it is undermined and the father does not come into a position to have contact. He is marginalised, squeezed out.
-Then one may retain parental responsibility, but that does not mean so much if one does not see the child, says Østberg.
Unfair methods
Østberg gives examples of several methods that can be employed in an attempt to remove the other parent.
The father risks being squeezed out of the child’s life. Even if he has a right to contact this can be sabotaged. The child can be used as a weapon so that the woman gets her way in the relationship. The one who does not have parental responsibility has no right either to oppose a move to other parts of the country.
It can be false accusations, parental alienation or pure contact sabotage, which is an obstruction of the father’s possibility of having contact. One can influence the child, or create difficulties. If this lasts over time and is of comprehensive extent, one gradually loses contact with the children and becomes demoralised.
Another method is to move far away with the children, either within the country or abroad. In practice it is free for the parent who has parental responsibility to move wherever they wish.
Notices of mediation can be ignored, so that it means nothing for the mother.
According to Østberg the most serious cases are those that concern the relationship between child and parent being broken without there being a real reason for it. When a father is unsuitable, perhaps is a substance abuser, mentally ill or an alcohol abuser, or mistreats the child, there can be factual grounds for relationships being broken. But it happens to a much, much greater degree.
The importance of having a father in one’s life
That fathers disappear out of children’s lives, for example by contact being sabotaged, is not only sad for the fathers who wish to be there for their children. It can also have large, negative consequences for children.
Psychologist Katrine Relander has pointed to the importance for children of having a father present in their life. Research shows that it strengthens development in many ways, both for girls and boys.
— The more fathers engage themselves, the better it goes with the children, says Relander. She refers to a series of studies that show how important fathers are for children and their development. Engaged fathers are associated among other things with better mental health, grades at school, better social and verbal skills in the children.
(Harris, K. M., Furstenberg, F. F. & Marmer, J. K. Paternal Involvement with Adolescents in Intact Families: The Influence of Fathers over the Life Course. Demography. June 1998.)
That fathers are present in the children’s lives is also connected with fewer behavioural difficulties. An effect that persists through life.
(Cobb-Clark, D. A. & Tekin, E. Fathers and Youth’s Delinquent Behavior, Review of Economics of the Household, June 2014.)
3-year-olds who have involved, supportive fathers perform better on cognitive tests.
(Ryan, R. M., Martin, A. & Brooks-Grunn, J. Is One Good Parent Good Enough? Patterns of Mother and Father Parenting and Child Cognitive Outcomes at 24 and 36 Months. Parenting: Science and Practice. May 2006.)
— Nevertheless the mother is regarded as the primary parent. The father comes in second place, says Relander.
Read more:
Fathers are suppressed juridically
When Relander learns that the mother can simply send in an application to the Tax Administration (Skattetaten) in order to obtain parental responsibility alone within one year after the birth, she has this to say:
-Then one has no rights. It is bizarre to treat the mother as the only important and rightful parent. Then one has absolutely no understanding of the significance of the father.
-If one creates such a loophole for the rule, then it is not real. It is very hypocritical, and says something about one not intending to secure the father’s parental rights fully. Then one is suppressing fathers juridically.
And the research Relander draws upon shows that the suppression is not without consequences.
It is not only the father who suffers under such a policy. The children also risk losing an important role model.
Statistics
Between 12 and 17 per cent of all fathers with children under 18 years almost never see the child. In the course of one month they have almost not seen the child.
According to figures from Statistics Norway (SSB) 12 per cent of contact fathers have stated that they have not had contact with their children in the course of an ordinary month. 17 per cent stated in one of the most comprehensive surveys that they had not seen the child in the course of the last month.
https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/hvilke-fedre-har-lite-eller-ingen-kontakt-med-barna-nar-foreldrene-bor-hver-for-seg
-That is to say 50 000 fathers, and even more children, says Østberg.
-The most serious cases the system stands completely powerless against. One would think, after many years of equality struggle, that one had an apparatus that was attentive to this and intervened against it. But that is not the case.
The reason is the feminist deep state, considers Østberg. -They will not put in the means, for then one must tread much harder against the mothers who do this, and one shrinks from that.
Majority for shared residence
Politically there has been a large majority for shared residence as the main rule, and the Storting has several times requested stronger reactions against contact sabotage.
Østberg draws attention to the Solberg government’s political platform, the Granavolden declaration. They instructed the Children Act committee to consider fixed residence as the point of departure, also as a means against contact sabotage.
Personality disorders
One can of course imagine what sort of parents engage in alienation and sabotage.
-There is much personality disorder connected with that, and it is especially unfortunate that the child is left alone with an unsuitable carer, says Østberg.
-The authorities have obligations. Here Article 8 of the ECHR (EMK) comes in in relation to child allocation. Norway has been convicted several times in child-welfare cases. But there is much less practice against Norway in cases that concern parents and children.
-There it is also the state that contributes through the courts to approving a complete marginalisation of the father. For completely hopeless reasons. For example one can say that ‘the child will not’. The child is subjected to an enormous loyalty burden from the sabotaging parent. When contact has been fixed, it is not followed up. Norway has no apparatus for that, and contact fine is a poor means.
-Contact sabotage is not punishable. It ought to be, he says. MannsForum works to counteract contact sabotage.
The debate on parental alienation
In recent months the debate around parental alienation has raged in Aftenposten.
-Typically it is exercised in the context of child-allocation disputes. It is quite widespread, considers Østberg. -And the Norwegian professional community does not acknowledge that it exists.
Psychologist Frode Thuen claimed that the family counselling offices were little aware of the manipulation of children in order to get them to choose sides in the conflict. Then he received opposition from the family counselling offices.
-Thuen claimed that parental alienation takes place. Therapists from various family counselling offices, and a departmental head in Bufetat went on the attack against Thuen. This was wrong, says Østberg.
-Parental alienation, psychological influence of the child to take distance from the one parent. Can be really serious, a form of psychological violence, brainwashing of the child, implantation of negative attitudes and ideas, often drawing a monster picture of the other parent. It is clearly a special form of psychological violence. Insofar also against the parent who is demonised.
We know little about the extent of parental alienation, says Østberg.
MannsForum has, together with other associations, engaged itself in the debate. In a contribution in Aftenposten they write that:
«When a child experiences that the safety with one parent depends on taking distance from the other, the child can lose contact with both its own memories and parts of its identity. We know at the same time too little about the extent. The statistics do not distinguish well enough between contact breaches that are due to violence, locked conflict or influence.»
They invite open dialogue between Frode Thuen and the family counselling leaders.
-The family counselling offices do not see that the manipulation takes place. They do not acknowledge that it exists. Thus mothers can in many cases get away with manipulating the children.