Mr Hunziker, your association was originally called the «Association of Responsible Fathers», but now the «eV» stands for «parental responsibility». Why the name change?
It's true that when our association was founded in 1992, it was mainly aimed at fathers who were going through separation or divorce and sought our advice on their individual problems. Then it was expanded to include «fathers and mothers», and that's what it's called now.
Are more mothers contacting you today with the new name?
We advise both sexes and try to respond appropriately to every problem, whether it concerns the mother or the father. However, we remain highly sensitive to how fathers are treated in these situations. The VeV was founded because fathers are mostly the ones who have to contend with injustices when it comes to fair arrangements for the care and financing of joint children after a divorce. This is true in court, but also within society in general. There is still a great deal of work to be done in this area.
Aren't you perpetuating an old cliché?
To put it simply, I would say that mothers still find it easier to obtain custody and rights of care for their children in court. As a result, the mother gets the children and the father has to pay. This arrangement enjoys a surprisingly high level of acceptance and is apparently deeply rooted in social perception, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. This has to do with how the term «family» is commonly defined.
A father faces much greater prejudice than a mother.
How so?
A mother who cares for her children after a separation or divorce is still much more readily referred to as a «family». A father who cares for his children is primarily just «a father who cares for his children». He has to fight hard on all fronts to be recognised as a family member, and he faces much greater prejudice than a mother.
Statistics show that the majority of single parents are women, with only 12 per cent being men. This figure says a lot about how many cases are resolved.
First of all, we need to define the term"single parent" correctly. What does it mean in reality? Personally, I understand «single parent» to mean above all the hardship cases that unfortunately exist and whose protagonists are proven to have a difficult time coping with everyday life. This applies to their financial situation, the mental state of single parents and also the exhausting multiple burdens to which they are exposed.
Specifically, this refers to a widower or widow who is left to care for their children alone after the death of their partner, but still has to work to provide for their children and somehow make ends meet. But it also refers to parents who are «left behind» by their partner and then have to take care of everything completely on their own. Most of the cases I encounter, however, do not correspond to «typical» single-parent models.
But?
There are situations in which the parents live apart but remain committed. The majority of cases we deal with involve family structures in which both parents strive to be good parents to their children even after separation. This is because they feel committed to their parental responsibility to be there for their children. Unfortunately, in our practice, we often see that it is mostly fathers who would like to do more but are not allowed to – because their commitment is rigorously denied or they are brutally blocked.
I know many fathers who are denied the opportunity to participate in childcare after a separation.
From the mothers?
Yes, often. Fathers are often excluded from processes that are important for the child, namely those that concern both parents, due to hurt feelings or vanity on the part of the child's mother. Instead of looking after the child's welfare, thesemothers – after a separation, which, incidentally, always takes two to tango! – prefer to punish the man by not allowing him to see the children and by denying him a say in matters. These are emotional games of torture that are played out at the expense of the children.
Let's stick to the facts: after a separation, much more responsibility falls on the mother than on the father. She works part-time, organises childcare and everyday life, while he is only there for the children at weekends.
That's exactly the crux of the matter. Because this image is very widespread in society. But believe me, there are many fathers in Switzerland who don't just want to play the role of «paying dad» and who would like to be more involved in childcare. Unfortunately, mothers often refuse to allow them to do so. It is also a reality that there are still mothers who want the child's father to primarily pay child support, thereby successfully removing him from everyday life with the children.
«Successfully removed»? That sounds like war vocabulary.
It's a harsh term, but it applies in many cases that I know of. Even conscientious fathers who don't simply shirk their responsibilities find life very difficult under this premise. Many fathers suffer as a result. For some, this leads to depression and fear of loss, which they find difficult to cope with.
Who do you hold responsible for this?
It is the authorities and the courts that fail to recognise that there are many cooperative fathers out there who want to fulfil their responsibilities and not simply leave everything to the mother. Unfortunately, many mothers do not appreciate that having a committed ex-husband by their side can also be beneficial for their personal everyday lives.
As long as we have judges who do not give due consideration to fathers and their concerns, we will have to keep intervening.
They prioritise autonomy over relief. When parents pull together, it benefits everyone involved. This is especially true for children, who learn that Mummy and Daddy care about their concerns together. This is very important for a child'sdevelopment because it shapes them and strengthens their basic trust.
Are you implying that the courts and child protection authorities often make the wrong decisions and turn a blind eye by refusing to involve fathers?
Unfortunately, that is the case. However, to be fair, I must also say that a paradigm shift is slowly but surely emerging and that more and more authorities are having the courage to make balanced decisions. This is a win for our association and its causes.
Since July 2014, parental responsibility in cases of separation (regardless of whether divorce or separation) has been newly regulated in Switzerland. What previously had to be applied for in writing is now the norm, namely joint parental care for joint children.
We have fought hard for this, and yes, it is a welcome development. It strengthens the position of committed fathers. But appearances can be deceiving; there is still much to be done. As long as we have judges who do not give due consideration to fathers and their concerns, we must continue to intervene.
In your opinion, are it primarily feminist judges who rule against fathers in divorce cases?
My answer will probably surprise you, because the answer is no. It is by no means only female judges who rule against fathers because they primarily side with the woman. Much more often, it is conservative and stubborn male judges who believe that the woman must have the children at any cost and that the father should just pay up. This probably has much more to do with the personal life circumstances of the judge in question than with those of the people standing before the court.
And what does that mean for you?
That we still have a lot of work to do, because we are always focused on the issue at hand. Divorces are primarily about the well-being of the children. Gender issues or the so-called «gender war» have no place in these situations. That is what we understand by parental responsibility.
