In the midst of what some would call a crisis in family values, a bizarre custody fight is being waged in our nation’s capital. While most parents struggle just to be there, one couple is battling about who does it better. The answer is nobody.
The dueling duo consists of Sharon Prost, a counsel to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), and her former husband, Kenneth Greene, an executive.
Their squabble ended when a Washington, D.C., judge ordered the wife to surrender her two sons, ages 7 and 4, to their father.
Prost’s only crime is that she is a working mother. But if we were all docked for hours spent away from home, who among us would escape whipping?
Notable not only for its noteworthy clients, this case presents several issues of concern. While most adults endeavor to keep things all in the family, they also must work to earn a living so that, at the end of the day, everyone will have a place to call home.
For some time it has been recognized that in the courtroom, as in the world, the ideal of equality has not yet been fully realized. The gender of the offender matters.
In courtrooms, women must speak with a different voice because it has taken them so long to be heard. From suffrage to sexual liberation, from equal pay to comparable worth, they have more often argued as a powerless minority than the powerful majority. And a legal step forward frequently finds them back in their place. What is the change from no divorce to no-fault divorce but the law taking women to task?
Now that a woman’s work is both away and at home, it is not surprising it is never done. The law does not seem to recognize their conflicting roles.
But if accused murders are exonerated because they cannot be in two places at once, should working mothers settle for less.
Adding insult to injury is the double standard. In this case, justice is blurred, not blind. While working women are punished, men at work are rewarded. Providing is one of the defining aspects of fatherhood. Therefore, shouldn’t a mother also be praised for her labor.
It is true that in most divorces, wives usually receive custody of the children simply because they are mothers. Yet it is also true that when custody is contested, fathers win a majority of cases.
But why quibble over trivia? At a time when households are more often defined by who leaves them rather than who lives in them, when domestic violence seems to hit home more often than child support payments, a father who wants his children is a national treasure.
Belatedly, we have begun to realize that an absent father makes his presence felt. His style of nurture may be different than mother love, but it is just as natural.
Because most American households now depend upon two paychecks, we cannot afford a double standard if we want to try to maintain our living standard. With salaries shrinking even as we are told the economy is expanding, we are better off pooling our resources rather than squandering them on unnecessary fights.
We invent our American way of life as we go along. Tradition is only the preservation of our successes. Around-the-clock mothers were not always there. It required financial security and leisure to produce them. Fathers, no longer full-time hunters, have just begun to explore the potentials of parenting. With a little ingenuity we could reduce the contentiousness of our homes and, in the process, what a brave new world we might create.
But the evolving roles of men and women should not make us lose sight of our primary obligation as parents-our children.
To that end, when custody disputes arise, courts should mediate instead of punish. Gender bias within the law only weakens a family that is already broken. And while courts should not place unfair demands upon working mothers, neither should they ignore the legitimate desire of fathers to participate in the lives of their offspring.
If working parents are pressed for time, what better solution could there be than the division of family responsibilities. Mothers and fathers should call a truce on getting even so they may offer their children a fair share.
Long ago, King Solomon faced a similar dilemma-what to do with a child claimed by competing forces. Then, there were two combative “harlots.” Today, mothers and fathers want what they think belongs to them.
Yet Solomon’s wisdom still prevails. When quarrelsome adults seek restitution through the life of their child, we should still heed the king’s creed: Give it to the heart that yearns.
