In custody-related divorce cases, the ‘maternal bond’ has often been used to argue the mother should have primary care of the children of the union. This argument has become axiomatic, the impact most pronounced for the eighty percent of children that live with their mother after divorce.Whilst biological assertions have been used to substantiate the ‘maternal bond’ argument, its roots are found in gender norms ascribed by society that present the role of the woman as the central caretaker of children in the family. This phenomenon of ‘maternal gatekeeping’ has resulted in fathers becoming estranged from children following divorce. As such, this essay will discuss the legitimacy of the ‘maternal bond’ argument and question whether it is still relevant today as gender roles become increasingly progressive.
On a biological level, psychologists employ attachment theory, where “early mother-infant relationships (...) lay the foundation for psychological well-being and human personality through life”, to emphasise the importance of a strong bond between mother and child. This is expanded upon by Robert Winston and Rebecca Chicot who present the bond between mother and child as the prerequisite for normal human development. This forms the basis of the argument that a mother’s presence is integral to a child’s development and, thus, used to suggest mothers be given primacy in deciding who should be given custody of children in a divorce.
A second strand is used to justify the ‘maternal bond’ argument - after all, fathers just as easily take the place of a mother in forming a secure attachment with their child in single-parent households. The ‘maternal bond’ argument is reinforced by social norms, whereby traditional roles prescribed to women include caring for the household and the wellbeing of children. This is tied to the traditional perception that the female identity is “contingent on making sure children are well groomed and keeping a clean house”, and the belief that “women enjoy and find it easier to do housework and child care than men.”
Research from the National Center on Fathers and Families has shown that mothers play a pivotal role even in facilitating the father-child relationship. The trend continues for divorced parents, where the mother’s support is a key factor in the extent fathers participate in co-parenting interaction. This has led to the bias toward assigning care and control of children to the mother following divorce due to the perception mothers would be better able to take care of children.
These social norms transcend into the beliefs women hold towards themselves whereby “mothers believe they have primary responsibility for the home and child care.'' As a result, it has been found that mothers may even restrict the father’s access to children when she finds that they do not actively participate in the upkeep of the household. This is termed ‘maternal gatekeeping’, and is especially present in divorced families. In some cases, the mother might restrict the father’s access to the child because the father fails to contribute financially to the upkeep of the child, while in other cases access may be restricted as mothers feel that fathers are simply unfit to care for the children (reinforced by the aforementioned social norms).
This is, however, detrimental to the development of the child. The continued usage of the ‘maternal bond’ argument may perpetuate a mother’s belief that the father is unfit to care for the child, which leads to ‘maternal gatekeeping’ as she restricts the father’s access to the child, and thereby creating a situation where the father grows estranged from the child. In more extreme cases, mothers may even use the decreased interaction and bonding between father and child to argue that fathers should have less access to the child. The child will, therefore, grow up without their father’s presence, which could lead to their unhealthy development. Wider implications include the likelihood that the divorce procedure will be even more fraught with difficulty – to secure rights over their children, the status quo promotes conflict over rehabilitation and compromise whereby women often seek to produce evidence that fathers are inept in childcare. This suggests that an over-reliance on the ‘maternal bond’ argument reduces the possibility of amicable divorces and the chance for children in separated families to grow up in a stable environment with the care and support of both parents.
As gender roles become increasingly progressive, it can be found that fathers can play a much larger role in the upbringing of children and the upkeep of the household than the claims supporting the ‘maternal bond’ argument suggests. Married fathers are dedicating more time to their children than ever before. Moreover, a small but increasing number of fathers are even placing their child-rearing responsibilities over their career, with fathers seeking more flexible work hours or exiting the workforce entirely to care for their children. These trends suggest fathers are equally capable of devoting time and care toward their children and that the belief mothers are the superior caretakers is an outdated one.
However, despite increasing evidence to show that fathers can be more than capable of care-taking, divorced fathers remain largely uninvolved in the care and control of their children. Notwithstanding cases where the father has voluntarily given up the right to care and control for the children, the primary role non-residential fathers have undertaken is that of the financial contributor. Financial contributions are seen to be the main responsibility of divorced fathers, following the traditional mindset that men should be the breadwinners of the family. The role fathers play in the social and emotional development of children takes a backseat, leading to the perception that a father almost becomes less of a father after a divorce, excluding them from the family. In contrast, society still sees a mother as a mother. This view is reflected in the current state of divorce law, whereby fathers are required to provide for their children financially but not parent them. Its implications are so far wide-reaching that some fathers even view paternal absence as natural after a divorce, believing that they have little impact on their children’s lives.
Conclusion
Given that it is generally agreed that the presence of both parents after a divorce would be the healthiest for the socio-emotional development of a child, it is evident that more should be done to reduce the influence of the ‘maternal bond’ argument in care and control cases. While it is undeniable that the merits of the ‘maternal bond’ argument can be found in families where the father is genuinely incapable of carrying out care-taking duties, the law should not perpetuate gender-based stereotypes that deny fathers the opportunity to be involved in the lives of their children after a divorce.
A piece by Jing Wen Wong.