Orville Taylor | Paternity leave it alone, Chucky

It might seem as if I’m hopping on to his back, but Justice Minister Delroy Chuck is making it very difficult to ignore him these days. And I genuinely feel bad to be taking him to task, especially since a misunderstood column I wrote some months ago allowed some readers to get a wrong and unfair impression of his current permanent secretary. I wish, however, that if she can, put a fetter on his mouth or some other steering apparatus, to prevent him from running off track.

In the past few weeks, three senior attorneys have caused the public to gasp. First the DPP wrote an epistle, but it seems that the only reaction to it is the second syllable. Then, a senior counsel with the feral surname appeared to live up to it in declaring that the agents who arrested his client Ruel Reid were not right and couldn’t read him his rites. Finally, a clearly revved up Chuck, with no brakes on his thought processes, jumped off the ramp, left his lane of expertise and took on the paternity leave issue.

Now, I have tremendous respect for the intellect of the three attorneys, and in particular, the Rhodes Scholar, Chuck, who was well on a professorial path on my plantation when he departed for ‘greener’ pastures.

Spirited declaration

In a spirited declaration, he threw cold water on the debate regarding paternity leave and made declarations which could only be supported from some obscure case in his jurisprudence course.

However, the truth is, while ignoramuses and unlettered persons can be excused for speaking nonsense; when a 100-watt bright man, who is an opinion shaper, speaks, some people will actually believe the tomfoolery and take it as gospel. ‘Woslakahow’ agencies over which he has some jurisdiction have likely done some serious damage to the social fabric of the society.

For clarity, Chuck asserted, “If you want paternity leave, you must be living with the mother for a few months before birth. If it’s your wife, no problem. If it’s your girlfriend, and you not living with the mother, you would be getting paternity leave to do what? Visit her every day?”

My answer; “Yes, Chucky, he would ride his bicycle or take bus, although if he got time off, he could go more often!”

Now the inconvenient and clearly unread census data and the statistics from our Registrar General’s Department (RGD) have long indicated that 80 per cent of us are born out of wedlock.

If we go past our wide shut eyes, the national data reveal that we have myriad family forms and unions in this country. Most common is the extended family which comprises three generations and a matriarch, with or without her male spouse. It might surprise the reader that there are far more fathers living at home with their children’s mother than one would think.

Very interestingly, there is an extremely strong correlation between race/ethnicity/skin colour, on the one hand, and union form and household type, on the other hand. The nuclear family with a married mother and father is more associated with upper class, white, light brown, light-skinned Indians and, yes, Chinese.

Therefore, when the actors in the voice-dubbed Kung Fu movies, say “Ha! You dirty bastard!” they could very well be telling us about our last class in our population pyramid – working-class black people, whose parents never married.

Some unfortunate grand narratives exist in this country regarding the status of black men and working class populations on the whole. For example, we spread the lie that Jamaican men do not want to stand up to fatherhood. However, in a country where between 10 and 30 per cent of men who accept paternity ‘fail’ the DNA test, even when they took extra lessons, it is illogical to say that this assertion is true. We love fathering so much that we own up ill-fitting jackets around 25 per cent of the time.

Indeed, there is so much prejudicial ignorance that preliminary research reveals that most female managers are more unwilling to give male workers time off to attend to parenting activities. The assumption is that they are going to spend time with their sweethearts, yet, in at least 10 per cent of cases, we know that women are doing precisely that.

THE UWI JA KIDS PROJECT

The UWI Ja Kids project conducted by a multidisciplinary team, comprising medical doctor Professor Maureen Samms Vaughn and behavioural scientists, Dr Charlene Coore-Desai, Jody Ann Reece and Sidoney Shakespeare, is a must-read for anyone who wants to make even a cursory statement regarding fatherhood in Jamaica. This includes members of government.

Here are some facts. The study examined and followed 84 per cent of all children born in 2011 and their parents up to 2016. At birth, 92 per cent of the women indicated that they were in relationships with the men. On the other hand, a larger 97 per cent of the fathers declared that they were involved in a relationship with the mother.

By year five, more than 75 per cent of fathers were still in a spousal relationship with the mother. But importantly, more than 80 per cent of fathers and mothers reported that daddy was still involved in the lives of the children.

About 10 years ago, the RGD noted that when it made the process easier for fathers to get their names on the birth certificates, it resulted in around 80 per cent of children having their daddies’ names on their ‘age papers’ before the mothers leave the maternity wards.

All of this rubbishes the dumb idea that fathers are not present and actively participating in the lives of their unborn and new-born children.

Therefore, giving paternity leave to Jamaican fathers makes absolutely good sense.

Any assertion about residential requirement is discriminatory and even borders on racism. Certainly Section 13-(3) (g) of the Charter of Rights guarantees “the right to equality before the law”. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that Section 3 (i) which guarantees “the right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of (i) being male or female” and “(ii) ... social class ...” could very well be applicable. But here I acknowledge that this is an amateur opinion by a non-lawyer, which has the same stature as the expert commentary on social policy by the learned attorney.

My suggestion is that the minister focuses on using the social scientists in his ministry to conduct tracer studies on the impact of judicial decisions, especially those from the Family Court. He must also elevate that court to become a high court. Therefore, a body of juridical decision will be available for the senior judges to guide them. That is what he is trained for.

I know he means well, but he must leave the social work to the experts.

 

Dr Orville Taylor is head of the Department of Sociology at the UWI, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com