Working Women and Motherhood
A few days ago, I came across this case in a Delhi court, where custody of a 9-year old girl, was awarded to her grandparents rather than her mother (the father, in this case, was dead). Two things seem to have contributed to this - one, for some reason, the girl seems to have been staying with her grandparents for some time, and two, the girl stated that she would prefer to continue living with them.
I am a bit confused by the whole thing. While certainly a child’s wishes are important, is it possible that a 9 year old girl may not be able to judge the whole thing correctly? Since she has been living with her grandparents for some time, it is possible that her familiarity with them at this point of time, is greater. But given time, she could re-establish a relationship with her mother. It seems strange that when a parent is alive, he or she should be passed over.
One extremely annoying point is that the judge seems to have taken into account the mother’s being a working woman, as a significant factor while awarding custody. How should this matter at all? The court seems to be implying that working women cannot do a good job of childcare. Certainly the mother is going to be out of the house for a large part of the day; I assume she knows how to manage that! Why does the court need to decide whether or not she can handle it? Infact, the mother does have another child living with her currently. If the parent were abusive or mentally unfit, that’s another question, but there is no such indication in this case. So, it does seem as though the court is discriminating against working women.
I don’t necessarily believe that a mother is the only possible guardian - certainly, in cases where there is a custody battle between mother and father, I think the court can try and establish preferences from the child or see who would make a better caretaker. But giving custody to the grandparents is very strange, and somewhat impractical - it is not clear how old the grandparents in this case are, but naturally, grandparents are much older than parents and will pass away earlier. Even if 1 grandparent passes away, the other may find it difficult to handle things. What happens to the girl then? The court has ruled that “In view of her wishes, if the custody of the minor girl is disturbed, it would be detrimental to her interest.” How about if she is forced to move when she is 14 or 15 and her affection for her grandparents is even greater?
I wonder when our system ever going to get out of this mindset that a woman’s primary job is home and child care, and anyone doing anything else must necessarily not be a good mother.
- Related Posts You May Like
- Women and Work
- Demonstrating Marriage
- The Diamond Carnival of Feminists
In this case, as in many others where the father is the primary carer and is awarded custody in a departure from ‘norms’, this is not about the woman but about the child and her emotional welfare.
Social workers, who work with children in care, suggest that being stable in a family is a major factor in stabilising a child’s emotional wellbeing. Sometimes - in the west - children are removed from their parents’ house and placed in foster care because parents can also be disruptive and if the foster carer provides stability, the child thrives. There is plenty of evidence of this link so this is not a point pulled out of thin air.
It is unclear why the child was living with the grandparents in the first place. If it was because the sole parent needed help and was unable to care for the child on her own, then the court judgement is not far off the mark with a view to the child’s welfare.
If the mother were dead, and the father was working, and the child lived with her maternal grand parents, it was highly likely that the grandparents would retain custody. I am pretty sure not much hue and cry would be raised in such a case
Shefaly, I fully agree with you that in a custody case, it is the child’s welfare that is key. However, is stability really assured by giving custody to grandparents? As I mentioned, the likelihood of their being around for is naturally shorter than that of the mothers. Secondly, there is no case of the mother’s incompetence/inability. Perhaps at one point of time, her situation was such. But does that mean she can never re-build the bonds with her child?
Also, the cases of fathers being denied custody - to me, this is actually an outcome of the way motherhood is viewed. On the one hand, motherhood is deified - the mother is the only one seen as the natural guardian etc etc. On the other hand, there are impossible demands set on women to meet this deified status of motherhood - her life must revolve around the child etc etc. When this attitude goes, perhaps we will start seeing fathers also as capable and natural guardians.
did a post and linked you up…
I align right along with the mad momma on this one. I think the court’s decision, unexpected as it may be, is very fair. I dont know much about this case, but given the matter ended up in court, I can see there is not a whole lot of love between the mother and the grandparents - and it points to some history. But anyway the point is primarily about the girl - though only 9,she is clearly making a choice. Doesnt appear she is mumbling or speaking confused.
Now, about the mother. The court saying that this lady being a working mother was also a factor is justified because in the current situation there are two other related guardians (for many years now) who have more time to spare for the child, in addition to the girl’s stated preference.
I also disagree vehemently on the point of deification of motherhood. I absolutely adore my mother - and I will be honest and say that I think I would have had much to lose had my mom been a working mother. Before you label me selfish, I’d like to say that it is an expression of how grateful I am for her many sacrifices in bringing us up, not the least of which is sacrificing her career. So, do I deify her in this light? Yes. Was it entirely her choice? Probably not. So, while I dont support any notion of an ideal, all-sacrificing mom, I do feel a certain amount of deification of motherhood, in general, is normal. And this deification I am talking about does not require her to give up her career. But, where you say there are impossible demands placed on this deified mother, I certainly dont think it is unreasonable to expect that the mother (or father) should care about the child to make the effort to live and bond with him/her. There are hundreds of child custody cases settled in favour of mothers purely on the basis that she may have a better emotional bonding and can care better for the child. It just turns out in this case the mother did not measure up to the child’s expectations. I do think its natural for women (and men) to want it all - but if you want it all, you have to work for it all, too.
MM & Sri - actually my point is not that custody always needs to be with the mother; I don’t believe that. As I said, courts can certainly rule in cases, where either parent, mother or father, is not competent. But - I had 2 objections - one, just because a parent is unable to have a child stay with him/her for a few years, doesn’t mean they should never have custody. (I think you’ve touched this angle in your post, MM) Second - and this is my main point - ruling against custody because a woman is working - I think that brings us back to the same old thing of making a woman choose between career and motherhood. In this case, the judge specifically cited that - and I do think that is regressive.
Regarding the deification of motherhood - I have no issues if individuals choose to deify their mothers; also it wasn’t a reference to this one woman alone. My issue is with how society frames mothers as the sole care givers, often making it impossible for women to have other choices or feel good about making other choices.
no no.. not at all. but in all this - do you think its not upsetting for the child to be uprooted?
and i could be wrong, but the ruling - if it had been against a father who was working.. would it have made news? many fathers dont get custody because they are single working parents….
MM - I don’t really know - could there be halfway solutions, for e.g., where the parent gets custody and the grandparents get certain visitation rights? My point was really more that a parent’s working should not be a condition in custody - and I would say that for fathers as well - whether or not it makes news. If we make non-working an important condition, in any case, that totally discriminates against most single parents.. I think the necessary condition should be whether the parent can make suitable arrangements for the child to be taken care of…
that said - i like your suggestion. maybe custody to mother and rights for grandparents… or maybe they should have all just been sensible and moved in closer… a dupleix apartment. let the grandchild be with grandparents till mom comes home from work. anything to make it easy for the child - which should be the main concern.
but i a guessing if they’ve gone to court over it, they’re unlikely to want to live in the same apartment complex!!!
Apu and Madmomma
As long as people treat chidren like chattels, this debate is unlikely to resolve amicably.
if more people could see children as people with feelings and needs, probably they would find more kindness in their hearts as well as more compassion.
‘children’ even
Shefaly brings in a common-sensical perspective, as always! But yes - at times, there are probably differences that cannot be reconciled - as MM says, the very fact that they’ve gone to court, perhaps hints that compromises have failed?