Who Is Responsible for Responsible Fathering?

Abstract

In May 1998 issue of this journal, William Doherty, Edward Kouneski, and Martha Erickson proposed a conceptual framework on Responsible Fathering. For both empirical and theoretical reasons, we found their essay be problematic. The proposed model excludes key features of fatherhood and of motherhood, and researchers who attempt operationalize it or practitioners who attempt develop programs from it are destined be misguided. We are concerned authors wrote from a position of advocacy. We agree new research on fatherhood primarily reflects a position valuing involved fathers and discussions about absent fathers sometimes have a moral overtone. This is particularly evident in policy arenas. Congress, in fact, titled a 1998 child support bill, The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act. As demonstrated by plethora of empirical studies blaming mothers for their children's behavioral, psychological, and social problems (Caplan & Hall-McCorquodale, 1985), discussions about motherhood have moral overtones as well. Arguments grounded solely in ideology are inherent in nature of public discourse. What is important for researchers who advocate a specific policy position in our journals is adhere principles and practices agreed upon within a scientific community, regardless of ideology (Furstenberg, 1999). We appreciate authors' willingness make their underlying assumptions explicit. We draw attention empirical literature authors neglected, however, and raise questions about their explicit and implicit reasoning. We take issue with their assumptions and their conclusions, and we critique their model by highlighting sociohistorical context of fatherhood, childhood, and motherhood. WHAT CHILDREN NEED? A key, explicit assumption of authors is that children need [italics added] and deserve active, involved fathers throughout their childhood and adolescence (p. 279). Although there might be an ideological basis for this assumption, it lacks empirical support. Members of scientific community may agree on what children need-broadly defined-for biological, physical, emotional, psychological, and social well-being. There is agreement, however, these needs must be met by a parent of a certain gender. In their study of children from single-parent households, Downey, Ainsworth-Darnell, and Dufur (1998) asked: Do women and men play unique roles in shaping children's well-being? (p. 878). They concluded the challenge for family researchers is distinguish between familial characteristics are necessarily important for creating positive family environments for children and those, such as sex of parent, are not (p. 892). We have no objection children having actively involved fathers, but research has demonstrated children's needs can be met within full range of fathers' involvement, from no involvement fathers raising children on their own (Acock & Demo, 1994; Risman, 1987). WHICH FATHERS MATTER Doherty et al. focused on heterosexual, biological fathers to delimit review (p. 279). Except for marital status, nothing in authors' conceptual model accounts for their emphasis on biological fathers. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence biology predisposes fathers be responsible and involved (Cooksey & Fondell, 1996). The authors deliberately excluded adoptive, gay, step, fictive kin, and other father surrogates, many of whom are involved, responsible fathers. They suggested nonbiological and gay fathers deserve empirical and programmatic focus, but they saw such focus as beyond scope of their paper. Given authors' concerns about children's needs and variety of ways through which men function as fathers in contemporary society (e.g., Hawkins & Eggebeen, 1991), we are at a loss understand their decision. Because there are involved and engaged fathers who are meeting their children's needs in all of excluded groups, a contextual model of responsible fathers would and should include them. …