Throwing them in jail won't help children much, either financially or psychologically. The truth, meanwhile, seems unwelcome in political circles: Most employed men pay their child support in full and on time, and always did, without government prodding.

Similarly furthering the public impression that only men are guilty of domestic violence is counterproductive if the goal is truly to bring fathers home. That's because as the system is currently set up, men lose all legal rights to home and children if a woman charges assault. The accused is guilty until proven innocent.

Clearly, the state has a compelling interest in protecting women and children from abusive men -- where they exist. But not all charges are legitimate and the state's punitive powers, permitted without due process, are mind-boggling to consider. Once the system is engaged and injunctions issued, even innocent fathers are unlikely to see much of their children. Perhaps never.

On Mother's Day, we didn't hear much about women initiating domestic violence, including child abuse, though some studies show that they do more often than men. That's not a popular statistic for the good reason that women more often than men suffer grave injury and are killed in physical disputes.

Those two dueling facts highlight the lose-lose nature of the domestic violence debate. But if prevention of violence and preservation of the family are indeed our goals, then the solution involves focusing on the causes of family violence, including women's role, not promising to make things tougher only on fathers.

Changing the system won't be easy, but Obama is uniquely positioned to make a difference in the conversation. He should begin by saying that bringing fathers back into the family means ending the demonization of men and the culture's trivialization of fatherhood.

That would be a change we could believe in.