Phillip Garrido is technically “a father.” He allegedly kidnapped Jaycee Dugard when she was 11, sexually assaulted her, so that she subsequently gave birth to two children. Some have had difficulty attaching the term “father” to Garrido. One news report I saw said, “He allegedly “sired” two children.” These children (both girls), are reportedly 11 and 14. We do not know if Garrido also sexually assaulted the children.
This week I would like to discuss a difficult subject and ask some difficult questions. Because I am using the case of Phillip Garrido to guide this discussion, we are considering fatherhood. However, I believe the same points can be raised regarding motherhood.
Here are the questions:
At what point is a father not a father? At what point does a child not need both parents? At what point does a father’s treatment of a mother justify the termination of his parental rights? Should criminal behavior be considered in custody/visitation cases? At what point is a father so mentally ill that children should not see him? Should a child’s wish to see his/her father play a role in these decisions?
I’ll say up front that in the extreme case of Phillip Garrido few if any one will argue that a court should have the girls brought to visit him in prison. For most people the question of whether Garrido also sexually assaulted the girls would be a deciding factor. For the sake of this discussion we will assume that the question of sexual assault cannot be proven one way or another and that the girls won’t talk about that. We are going to make that assumption because in the vast majority of cases I know of that is the situation.
At what point is a father not a father?
State laws say that a rapist does not have parental rights. O.K. that makes sense for stranger rapes, but what if the rape occurred within the context of a relationship? What if a woman is raped, feels humiated then decides to continue a relationship with the “attacker” so although a rape occurred on Tuesday she consented on Friday and we don’t know which act resulted in conception.
What if there is coercion within the relationship. The man says, “Unless you take care of me sexually, I’ll divorce you and get custody of __________ (an existing child).” Out of fear the woman consents to sex sort of and gets pregnant again. In this case coercion is psychological as opposed to physical.
Now if you think that coerced sex is rape. What about covert coercion? I mean conning? What about the woman conned into the relationship? In this case her beliefs about the man and the nature of their relationship that caused her to consent were all based on lies. Had she known the truth, she would never have agreed to the relationship or to sex. What then?
At what point does the father’s treatment of the mother justify the termination of his parental rights?
In many cases the family courts have tried to separate the relationships of the family believing that a man’s treatment of his partner has nothing to do with his relationship with his children. It appears that even Phillip Garrido provided for these children in that they were supported financially. He also claims he nurtured and loved them.
If you say that kidnap and rape of the mother justifies termination of parental rights. I can tell you of a case where the woman initially consented to the relationship. The man who is a psychopathic con artist, eventually held her prisoner. She gave birth during that time and is now fighting to have the man’s parental rights terminated. He was arrested and is in prison for assaulting a sibling, the woman’s other child, but he is still “a father”- according to at least one judge.
Does a woman held prisoner have to constantly try to escape in order to “prove” she was not a “willing victim”? The victim in Garrido’s case did not apparently attempt escape. Are we to say she voluntarily lived with Garrido?
At what point is a father so mentally ill that children should not see him?
It is clear that in addition to being sexually deviant, and personality disordered, Garrido is also psychotic (delusional and hallucinating). Should children be protected from parents with psychosis? If so why? People with cluster B personality disorders have difficulty with interpersonal relationships and when the disorder is severe are not capable of placing another person’s welfare above their own. What then?
Should criminal behavior be considered in parental rights cases?
There are many children who are ordered to visit parents in prison. Why are these girls an exception? (Provided that they were not assaulted).
Should a child’s wish to see his/her father play a role in these decisions?
Garrido’s victim’s family members are quoted in the news as saying that the situation has been difficult for the girls since “He was their father.” Children have a natural tendency to seek to be with those who have raised them. Why do we use this tendency against them? Why do we think this is always a good thing? Shouldn’t concerned healthy adults make a decision based on reason, instead of a primitive drive children have?
My answers
We all have to stop denying that the above questions exist, put our heads together and come up with a just system for dealing with these questions. In the United States, I am afraid this should be a Federal Issue. It will be very difficult for us to fight to change the laws in every state separately. To say that a child always needs both parents is clearly absurd, as Garrido’s case shows us. If we look at each aspect of Garrido’s case we see there are some clear guidelines that can be developed to deal with situations where:
One parent harms the other.
One parent terrorizes, coerces and/or imprisons the other.
One parent is a criminal.
One parent is mentally ill.
Although cases where a child has two disordered parents are common (and most tragic), cases where there is one relatively healthy parent should be the focus of change. I assert this because by forcing a parent to deal with a disordered other parent, we condemn that person to suffer during what should be the happiest most productive years of their lives. Let’s face it, 18 years is a long time. Also since the psychiatric disorders are partly genetic, these children need the best, least stressful upbringing the least disordered parent can give them.
Please use the comments section to weigh in on your answers and post your own story with regard to these questions.
Thankyou Rosa:
I love you!!xoxo
SKYLAR:
“You and I would set up a covert, revenge for hire company.” You should come and see Oxy and Rosas and my pig farm! You are officially invited!
Tilly:
If you used the “Dry Socket” situation, then you are not only a GENIUS, but a GREAT ACTRESS, too. 🙂
Tilly,
It’s okay to RANT and VENT, just please don’t point the “gun” at your friends here! You know we love you and are here for you! (((hugs)))) Thanks for explaining. Love oxy
Sorry Oxy, I didn’t know i was doing it myself until you pointed it out. Guess what? I am in class right now! HA HA!
Dear Tilly,
Hope your class time wasn’t too bad (at the time I am writing this it was yesterday now) I know it is irritating to be around these creeps, and you get “triggered” sometimes into anger etc. but it concerns me when you go “walk about” emotionally over it. I’ve done the same thing “back when” stress was really high but the most important thing to me is to NOT strike out at others who are my friends just because I am upset or stressed out by the psychopath.
Forgiving myself for the striking out I did was probably the hardest hurdle I’ve had to go over so far in my healing, so far. I’m not saying this to “boink”you, but just to make you aware. ((((hugs))))) Have a better day today!
Thankyou Oxy.
I am so sorry the minister thing didn’t work out, I hope you take extra time to nurture yourself and release some anger somehow. I do not “hate” anyone on lovefraud (except pianoman for what he did to that lady) and i AM NOT POINTING A GUN TO ANYONE. i FEEL LIKE WHATEVER i SAY IS WRONG HERE AT THE M0MENT SI i WILL HAVE A BRIEF HOLIDAY FROM COMMMENTING TO ANYONE EXCEPT ROSA AND MATT AS I AM TOO OVERSENSITIVE TO THE MISCOMMUNICATIONS . STAY SAFE OXY. i LOVE YOU AND THANKYOU FOR ALL THE HELP YOU HAVE GIVEN ME. bACK SOON.
comments
As we post, there is an important fact that we must all keep in mind. Here it is: Linguists estimate that 65 percent to 90 percent of the meaning in human communication is transmitted via nonverbal cues—tone of voice, facial expression, body language. None of these cues, of course, are available over a computer. That means when we post written comments on the Lovefraud blog, 65 percent to 90 percent of our meaning may be missing.
So what happens? Without the benefit of those nonverbal cues, people interpret a post to mean what they want it to mean.
Sociopaths take advantage of this phenomenon all the time. When sociopaths are sending flowery e-mails that are full of lies, we interpret the e-mails as truth, because we want them to be true. We believe what we want to believe.
Assume honorable intentions
Here on Lovefraud, this can go either way, depending on the reader’s frame of mind. If a reader is looking for consolation, he or she may interpret another poster’s advice as supportive. If a reader is on edge—a common occurrence with victims of sociopaths—he or she may interpret another poster’s advice as being critical.
I ask everyone to assume that all of us are posting with the best, most honorable intentions, and that we are here to support each other. If at any time you feel that a blogger is not posting with honorable intentions, please let me know.
We are a group of opinionated people, and there are going to be times when we disagree. That’s fine. I think an animated discussion of different points of view is healthy. However, all discussions should be respectful, and no one should be personally attacked.
Glinda,
I couldn’t agree with your first post more. I am disgusted that the courts are so very concerned with paternal rights when a man has no desire to be a father, has never been a father to the child, has a serious personality disorder and is abusive.
What shocks me, is that the courts don’t consider it child abuse if a father tries to kill a baby and the mother while the baby is in utero (which is what my exS did). I think it’s because the law does not want to mess with the messy gray areas, but instead, they mess up children’s lives. I think it is child abuse because my child would not even be alive if I had not gotten to the hospital in time after the attack and if my doctors had not saved him. To, me, it does not matter that he was in utero.
The courts need to be much more concerned with children’s rights than parental rights.