Fathers' Rights: Hard-Hitting and Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute.

Jeffery M. Leving with Kenneth A. Dachman Basic Books/HarperCollins 10 East 53rd St. New York, NY10022 206 pp., $23

In Fathers' Rights, Jeffery Leving, a Chicago attorney, tells divorcing fathers that if they want to stay involved with their children, they are likely to face an uphill battle dealing with a judicial system that undervalues fatherhood and is biased against men in custody awards. This assessment is supported by recent studies of divorced fathers, which found that these men felt that lawyers and judges assumed that they were uninterested in parenting, or, if they were interested, that fighting for sole custody or joint custody was not worth the effort.

To help these men deal with this bias, Leving advises divorcing fathers on how to choose and work with an attorney, how to approach negotiation, and how to battle through a litigation, if necessary.

Although Leving is a zealous advocate for fathers, he has tried hard to avoid being inflammatory. In his introduction, he writes, you'll find no deceitful guerrilla tactics and no antiwomen ravings."

Throughout the book, fathers are cautioned to remain calm and reasonable, to do their best to seek out an agreement that will work for both parents, and to respect the relationship between mother and child. Fathers are strongly advised to negotiate custody agreements rather than go through the litigation process, which is expensive, exhausting, and time-consuming.

Despite the conciliatory tone of much of the book, Leving occasionally shows an angry, bitter edge: "[T]he intense suffering and toxic trauma inflicted on fathers and children by judicial bias and incompetence is serious, widespread, and shameful." No doubt this anger comes from his observation of fathers who have been repeatedly denied a reasonable parenting role. Nonetheless, it prevents him from presenting a deeper analysis of these issues.

For example, Leving criticizes the tendency of judges to continue using the old "tender years" presumption--even though the presumption is no longer law--without acknowledging that the court's bias reflects that of society, that social evolution takes time, and that many parts of society are evolving toward valuing fathers more.

Leving is also largely silent on how mothers cope with divorce. This is a serious omission. Since fathers will need to negotiate with these women, they should have some idea of what their wives are going through. Leving also fails to mention that these wives are probably being told by their attorneys that the legal system is biased against them when it comes to the financial effects of divorce.

Instead, Leving simplistically notes that women have joined the work force and that "while complete equality in the workplace has not been achieved, a women's right to demand respect, status, and compensation based solely on job performance is no longer seriously questioned." By dismissing financial independence as the central concern of many divorcing mothers, Leving is not preparing divorcing men to negotiate thoughtfully with their wives.

Leving also gives a misleading account of the recent evolution of parenting roles After noting that modern families are no longer modeled on a post-war nuclear family ideal, he states, "Both mothers and fathers have become, in the words of one pediatric psychologist, 'executive parents' --more parental care managers than direct caregivers. In other words, families today are a lot like small businesses, with dads, moms, relatives, and hired help doing whatever must be done, with little regard for title or status."

There is some truth in this observation, but it neglects the central problem that most couples face. In this age of rapidly evolving family roles, couples who are planning families cannot rely on standard social expectations of what their roles will be. They need to discuss their own expectations, desires, and resources.

In fact they rarely do, and, later, conflicts over family roles often lead to divorce. What is needed is some understanding of what it means to live with a shattered dream of family life, not some glib welcome to the brave new world of "parental care managers."

Leving wants to see our society as one where there is little difference between mothers and fathers, and he states that "several studies comparing the child-rearing skills of single fathers with those of single mothers found no difference between the two groups." These studies are at odds with studies that have concluded that mothers and fathers tend to have quite different--yet complementary--parenting styles.

His assertion is also at odds with his own advice, which urges fathers to "improve (or develop) your performance of child care chores. You need to know the basics of cooking, laundry, housework, and groceries and clothes shopping." How can fathers still be learning the basics and yet be no different from most mothers in their parenting skills?

Leving's main failing is that he does not provide fathers with a broader social and historical perspective on what they are going through. He portrays our society as one where we have somehow jumped from the post-war nuclear family to a world of parental care managers. In reality, we are going through a confusing social and economic transition that is highly disruptive to many families.

Leving also portrays the judicial system as victimizing only fathers in custody awards. In reality, courts are struggling institutions trying to keep up with a rapidly evolving society, and their failings affect both mothers and fathers.

Without a broader perspective, divorcing fathers who read this book are apt to conclude that they are the only victims of a senselessly cruel legal system. Their negotiations with their spouse may well disintegrate into a contest of who can claim greater victim status. This is clearly not Leving's intent.

At several junctures, he counsels fathers to get over their despair and to emphasize positive parental activities. What he perhaps does not understand is that by focusing exclusively on the victimization of fathers and by failing to provide a deeper historical understanding of the evolution of family life, he is making it harder for these men to get beyond their own feelings of victimization.

Despite this drawback, Leving's book is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion of modern family law. The image of the deadbeat dad--which has received considerable attention in the courts and in the media--is unfair to many fathers who have been put through the ringer in a custody battle. In fact, many of these men are caring human beings who have been deeply hurt by and during the divorce and custody proceedings. They are not deadbeat dads, and they need a forceful advocate like Leving to get their message out.