"It's perfectly fine that the father will do things differently," says psychologist Tomáš Kvapilík. Why do children thrive when dad is not just mum's helper?
Parenting has been changing in recent years. Fathers are less and less willing to be the only ones who "help" when needed, and mothers are more and more often faced with the exhaustion of having to shoulder most of the care and mental burden. But there is often a gap between goodwill and truly shared responsibility - created by fatigue, unspoken expectations, old family patterns and fear of letting go of control.
These are the topics discussed by psychologist and psychotherapist Tomáš Kvapilík, who works in private practice in Prague. He graduated in psychology at the Faculty of Social Studies of Masaryk University, received long-term training in Gestalt psychotherapy and his work focuses on partner cohabitation, anxiety, trauma and everyday mental health care, among other issues. In addition to his therapeutic practice, he is also known for his outreach work, lectures, educational videos and his book Mosaic of the Soul.
In the interview, he explains why childcare is not "helping" the other parent, but an independent relationship that is built through time, mistakes, and ordinary moments together. She also talks about why parents shouldn't try to compete on who does more, but rather look for ways to remain a team. And it touches on queer parenting - that is, families in which roles can't simply be copied according to the traditional idea of "mom takes care, dad makes money."
In recent years, there has been a lot of talk about the changing role of fathers - no longer just the ones who provide for the family financially, but also active parents who are close to the child on a daily basis. As a psychologist and psychotherapist, when you meet with parents of young children, what do you think is the most recurring theme in their relationships and the division of care?
If I try to generalize, I often encounter what could be compared to a gap. Parents and partners work alongside each other, often at top speed, doing their best, but often falling short on the mental intimacy of their partner relationship. Having a long enough and uninterrupted space to share insecurities, sadnesses, upsets, thoughts and wishes. And so it often happens that partners invisibly drift apart, even though they are physically still side by side.
A 2024survey of Czech and Slovak parents showed that mothers still provide the majority of care for children under three, up to around 75 per cent on average. Does this figure surprise you, or do you think it corresponds to what can be observed in everyday life and in therapeutic practice?
I am not surprised by the result. At the same time, the remaining 25 percent is progress according to some other research findings from previous years. Based on a comparison of various data, it can be concluded that the equalization of care is a fairly rapid trend, and so we can expect that the quarter where the majority on the mother's side is no longer completely valid will expand.
Many men today say they would like to be more involved in childcare, but often do not know how to start, or feel that 'Mum can do it better anyway'. What do you think most often holds fathers back from becoming truly equal caring parents?
There are many factors, some of which are economic or influenced by the mother's and father's career choices. But we can stick with the phrase 'Mum can do it better anyway'. Seems to me like a trail to follow. Is it just a ruse to cover up the tendency to keep comfortable? Does it have to do with maturity for the parental role, or with abdicating responsibility in other commitments the man has? Could it mean an unwillingness to face uncertainty and possible mistakes? It's up to each person to follow that trail, even if it's through a couple's conversation. However, I would add that far from being about who can do it better, it is primarily about building a relationship with the father. However imperfectly, however differently than with mom, the key is that the child experiences these situations with dad.
In the context of parenting, the formulation that the father "helps" the mother with the child is often used. Why do you think this particular language can be problematic? And where is the line between the man helping at home and actually taking on some of the parental responsibility?
It is natural that parents and partners will help each other, not just with the child. At the same time, I always encourage the father to have his own independent time with the child where they get to know each other, have their own activities, and build their relationship without the assistance of anyone else. And I certainly wouldn't think of that part of parenting as helping the other parent. It is significant and functional in its own right, for the child and his personality, for the father and his parenting competence, and most importantly for their relationship.
Many mothers, according to the survey mentioned above, want the father to be more involved, but at the same time, it can be hard for them to let go of the caregiving part - because they feel that they alone know best how to dress, feed, put to sleep or soothe the child. How do you understand this tension between the desire to help and the need for control?
Giving up control is extremely difficult for some parents. And sometimes it can lead to pathological phenomena if the need for control persists into older age and sometimes even into adulthood. I have mentioned here that it is far from being about who does it better, and certainly not about who does it best. A child grows and thrives, even if some moments don't go ideally. However, for many people, the topic of control is lifelong because it represents a strategy to alleviate anxiety. People know that anxiety in other situations, and anxiety sticks to parenting a young child very easily.
What advice would you give to a father who wants to be more involved but is facing criticism at home that he's not doing things right? How can he avoid retreating into the role of passive parent after several failed attempts?
There is usually an emotion behind the criticism and the emotion is an echo of a need. Partners can always follow the emotion to the need and better see where the criticism is actually coming from. At the same time, I like to encourage fathers to create their own parenting style, not just follow instructions, not just copy someone else's ways and patterns. It's perfectly okay for a father to do things differently. It's good for the child. For example, one parent always plans the trip in detail, has a snack for every hour, has a predetermined time to come home. The other parent may well go out with the child without a plan, without a snack, without an exact time of return. A child can learn a lot from new, unplanned situations.
Conversely, what would you say to mothers who are exhausted, feel that the care is largely theirs, but at the same time have trouble trusting their partner to take care of the child in their own way and well enough?
I think this brings us back to the subject of anxiety and fear. Trust is the opposite of anxiety. I can't imagine parenting without trusting both the partner and the child to do some things on their own. However, it is also possible that the other parent may lack specific parenting competencies. But then it's a good idea to build them together with the aim of handing over responsibility to the other person later and putting my trust in them.
In your opinion, can childcare ever be divided fairly on a percentage basis, or is it more important that both parents feel that their work, tiredness and needs are actually seen and taken seriously in the relationship?
Percentages can be an interesting tool, but there are many important aspects of parenting and partnership that cannot be quantified. That's also why, from my perspective, respect for each other's needs and experiences is more important. Not all needs can be met at certain times and not all feelings can be perfectly nurtured, but that respect and appreciation is important.
You've talked before about the care setting in the family not being a once and for all done deal, but something that needs to be continually opened up and updated. How should parents talk about the division of custody so that it doesn't turn into a crisis conversation the moment one of them is already on edge?
In my therapeutic experience, I find that many couples are comfortable making sharing and intimate conversations the rule. Sometimes more than once a week, they set aside time, usually after the kids are asleep, to open up what would otherwise be there to obstruct and stifle. And it's clear that no one wants to undergo this, it's not pleasant. But if I take responsibility for the health of our relationship, I will do it regularly. Regularity is the key, just like brushing your teeth or exercising.
How can a conversation like this be completely practical? What can parents say instead of reproaches like "you never do anything" or "it's all on me" so that the other person doesn't immediately become defensive?
The basic condition is the I-formulation. It doesn't generalize, it doesn't point fingers, it doesn't demean, it doesn't curse. If one talks about one's needs, one's experience, and does it through the I-formulation, it is not a reproach. And if someone takes a statement like "I'm very exhausted today" as an attack on the self right away, and it's a persistent pattern that repeats itself every time, then I would recommend seeking psychotherapeutic help.
How much do you think we carry the role models from our own families into parenting? Many of today's parents grew up in an environment where childcare was seen mainly as a woman's role and the man was more likely to be the breadwinner. Is it possible to step out of these patterns just by saying we want to do it differently?
Value setting is very important, and if partners agree that they want to do it in a certain way that is very different from what they themselves experienced in childhood, it is certainly beneficial. It can provide a fixed point to which they will return. However, it is to be expected that those patterns from the original families will resonate. And they resonate especially in situations where one is on the edge, one doesn't know how to cope, one is exhausted, so the pattern from the original family kicks in.
What does it give the child if he or she doesn't experience one parent as "main" and the other as "attendant"? Why is it important for him to have a real relationship with both parents from an early age, if that is possible in a given family?
At a certain stage in a child's development, especially at the very beginning, it is perfectly natural and beneficial for one parent to be the main parent. But I would not conceptualise the parental relationship through words like "main" and "accompanying", but just as you mentioned, for example through the word real, or also authentic, full. And that fullness can look different in different circumstances. And also from each parent, this fullness and authenticity can take on different qualities.
Partners complement each other in a certain way. They are like a puzzle. And in that way, they can each pass on the most valuable, the best part of their piece to the child. But this is not conveyed through words, but through relationship and shared experience. To pick up on my example from one of the previous questions, from one of the parents, he or she can imbibe diligence, consistency, the ability to plan. From the other parent, he or she can absorb the ability to improvise and the confidence to solve things on his or her own. Both are important.
Let's also touch on queer parenting. In families of two mothers or two fathers, care cannot automatically be divided according to the traditional idea of "mom takes care, dad earns." Could this be an advantage in some ways, because parents have to negotiate their roles more consciously?
Yes, you could say that this situation encourages communication earlier because it is different in some ways, and I can't project my childhood models onto it as a carbon copy.
But at the same time, queer couples live in the same society as everyone else and can carry similar patterns, pressures to perform or imbalances in care. Is it fair to say that queer parenting in itself does not automatically mean a more equitable distribution of parenting roles?
I don't think there's anything in any couple that can be considered in and of itself. There is always a need for awareness, communication, the resulting steps, and also an evaluation of those steps. Nor is it inherent in me to think of queer couples in any specific way. It's still the case that they are two people, two parents, who will run into each other and in the vast majority of cases deal with the same issues as the heterosexual couple next door.
There are still stereotypical issues with queer parents - for example, whether a child will miss the "maternal element" in two fathers or the "male role model" in two mothers. What do you think is really important psychologically for the child and why does the gender of the parents not have to be the main criterion?
As I mentioned, partners are brought together also because they complement each other in a certain way. They're like a puzzle. And that puzzle-ness is there in all the cases I know, even in the question of feminine and masculine energy. Still, one can wonder what kind of male pattern or female pattern, in the case of a couple of two women or a couple of two men, the children can draw from. And again, I would draw on my experience where those male and female role models are very available in the immediate family.
If the parents of a young child were to take away one specific thing from our conversation that they can do tonight, what would it be?
To try and just listen to each other. Not to react, not to prepare a response, not to prepare an argument, but to just listen to the other person with all their attention and be silent. For maybe ten minutes straight. And then the roles reverse and the other person has ten minutes. Unfortunately, many couples fail to accomplish even this basic exercise.
