Australia’s Shared Parenting Experiment (Whiston, 2009)

An overview of marriage, divorce and the new custody laws in Australia

By Robert Whiston FRSA, Sept 13^th 2009

Every English speaking country around the globe has been trying for years to reach the point now achieved by Australia, namely the enacting of ‘shared parenting’. The goal is to make matters a little more equitable for divorced fathers and the judicial “orphaning” effect on children less severe.

In Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, for example, all attempts at a more egalitarian division of children’s time after divorce have been stonewalled using the same rehearsed argument once voiced in Australia.

Mindless chanting is fine for domestic audiences but why, if it is so impossible to arrange, can the French, Dutch, Swedes and Belgians have the wit that Anglophones lack ? Why not tell the public the truth – explain how and why it is we ‘Anglos’ can’t manage it

Shared Parenting in Australia was made possible by the introduction of Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006. This reformed Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975.

The most significant aspect of this reform was the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’. In particular, the concurrent obligation placed on family courts to consider ‘equal time’ and ‘substantial and significant time’ arrangements where the presumption applies.

Australia’s legal reform saw the introduction of ‘parenting plans’ which it was stated in the Act would help determine what actually was in the child’s best interests.

The “child’s best interests” is both a legacy and an obstacle. No where is there a definitive criterion and no where is it anyone but 3^rd party adults and professionals deciding what is in the parents’ and child’s best interests.(and at last academia and the mainstream media is beginning to recognise the anomaly). [1]

In an attempt to tackle this intellectual and philosophical deficit and reconcile parents, the Act divided considerations of the child’s best interests into two categories, 1). primary considerations and 2). additional considerations. These considerations are intended to form the basis of custody awards.

(NB. There seems to be an in-built assumption in the Act that only cases where the parents are in dispute does it necessitate them going to court for a ruling – RW).

In common with reforms in Belgium and Holland, resources were made available in Australia for the reconciliation of differences between parents and to help separating parents reach their own agreements.

At the same time as the Government implemented these legislative changes it also established Family Relationship Centres around Australia and funded other non-Government organisations (NGO) to provide parents with advice, counselling and mediation

It is interesting to note that all the topics alluded to so far have been put to the Lord Chancellor’s Dept (LCD) and the Ministry of Justice by Britain’s fathers groups since 2001 but to no avail.

It was anticipated that the majority of cases in Australia would be settled ‘amicably’ without court intervention. It was foreseen that only the more ‘intractable cases’ would reach court.

The implication of this is that whereas previously ‘the shadow of the court’ promoted sole custody arrangements with men not likely to challenge for better custody, the reforms of 2006 meant that equal and shared parenting was likely to grow, both through court awards and by off-the-balance-sheet arrangements, i.e. the shadow of the law effect.

It must surely come as a surprise to fathers everywhere that Australia’s Chief Justice suddenly decided that custody awards merited the keeping of statistics – said by a government source to be ‘a first’ for Australia’ judiciary.

The idea, apparently, was to “understand the results that were being obtained by the parties coming to court.” Why was this not being done already ? (This was a recommendation made to CAFCASS in LCD committee in 2000 by Britain’s fathers groups).

By the end of 2008 enough data had been gathered for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to make some basic and tentative assessment. The number of finalised cases totalled 1,448 and the number where “early agreements” had been reached was 2,719 (2007 – 2008).

These judicial statistics have to be measured against the larger number that are not decided by courts, made informally in the shadow of the law (and these figures do not relate to orders made in the Federal Magistrates’ Court).

Top

Fig. 1. Click for enlargement - Shared parental responsibility – Time spent with parents (Source: Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility - Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009)

In the diagram above (Fig1; Click for enlargement) the left most columns represents with whom the child spent the majority of their time. At nearly 70% are mothers with “consent orders”. The next column in the group, at 60%, is mothers with “final order papers”. A round 8% are fathers with “consent orders” and at 17% (light blue) are fathers with “final order papers”.

The next series of columns (and much shorter) reflect awards of a 50:50 division of time between parents. In this category around 18 – 19% of parents get equal time with their children.

The subsequent categories from right to left are 3). 30% – 45%, 4). 10% – 29%, 5). 1% – 0%, 6). No contact at all, 7). no order set, 8). “complex”, 9). Not available.

(See Appendix A below for more analysis).

It would be fair to assess the first 2 years as failing to live up to the fears of mothers and women’s groups that fathers would runaway with the majority of custody awards and the majority of shared custody. If anything the transformation to equality is close to imperceptible.

Overall, the Family Court has made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their mother in 60% of litigated cases – but ‘60% of litigated cases’ does not mean 60% of all cases.

By way of balancing this figure, where parents can reach an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend more than 50% of time with their mother in 68% of cases.

It is probably too early to suggest that Pareto’s Law is applying in custody awards.

The Family Court made 50/50 care orders between parents in only 15% of litigated cases. However this figure rose to 19% of cases where parents had came to an early agreement to share care.

If any progress is to be made in other countries – pre-supposing that a full 50:50 share in child care is an unlikely option – then the next category is perhaps the most vital, i.e. cases where the father receives between 30% and 45% of time.

In this category of cases where the father received between 30% and 45% of the time, the Family Court made orders to that effect in 14% of the litigated cases.

In this same category the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with the mother in only 3% of litigated cases.

In a third of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30% or less time with their father (Fig 2). Of the 100% of this category, the main reasons for the order included ‘abuse and family violence’ in 29% of cases (Fig 2).

Top

Fig. 2. Fathers - when less then 30% of the time – Reasons for the Family Court to order that children spend 30% or less time with their father in a third of the litigated cases

Reason	Percentage of cases
Abuse and family violence	29%
Entrenched conflict	15%
Distance/transport/financial barriers	6%
Substance abuse	5%
Relocation	4%
Mental health	3%
Childs’ views	2%
Other (*)	35%
* ‘Other’ includes where the reason is unknown such as; the parties consenting during the litigation process, the reason is not covered by a category, or there is multiple and complex reasons.
Source: Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility – Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009

If 29% of these 30% of cases involved allegations of abuse and family violence, this equates to approx. 9% of the total decided by courts (i.e. 29% of 30%). Where ’entrenched conflict’ is given as the reason this equates to 5% (i.e. 15% of 30%).

In 9% of litigated cases (Fig 3), the Family Court ordered that children spend 30% or less time with their mother. The main reasons for the order include mental health issues (31%) and abuse/violence. The later, at 16%, is higher than one would expect and for some reason no ’entrenched conflict’ is listed for mothers. This pushes the reader towards interpreting all conflict as male inspired.

Top

Fig 3. Mothers - when less then 30% of the time - Reasons for the Family Court to order that children spend 30% or less time with their mother in 9% of the litigated cases

Reason	Percentage of cases
Mental health issues	31%
Distance/ transport/financial barriers	16%
Abuse and/or family violence	16%
Substance abuse	7%
Relocation	7%
Entrenched conflict	2%
Childs’ views	2%
Other (*)	20%
* ‘Other’ includes where the reason is unknown such as; the parties consenting during the litigation process, the reason is not covered by a category, or there is multiple and complex reasons.
Source: Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility – Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009

In some states of the USA where shared parenting legislation has been adopted it has been suggested that a declined in the numbers divorcing has followed. This is not conclusively proven but tentative. Observations of a situation can also be deeply influenced by a fall in economic activity; a fall in marriage numbers, or is simply a coincidence.

Therefore, the graph below (Fig 4) should be treated with caution. The apparent fall in divorce since 2001 (itself unusually high) has been followed by further falls but the overall ‘averaged’ level, taken from 1996 to 2005, did not significantly fall until 2007.

Fig. 4. Divorces granted: Australia - 1988-2007 (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

A further word of caution in relation to Fig 4 is needed, namely that the ‘Y axis’ does not begin at zero divorces but starts at 39,000 divorces and rises to over 54,000, thus exaggerating the annual variations and could give a false first impression.

The number of divorces fell to 51,375 in 2006 and fell further in 2007 to 47,963. Whether this is a sustainable downward trend or a ‘statistical blip’ only time will tell.

It should also be added that the number of divorces granted in 2007 was 9.8% lower than five years earlier but only 6.6% lower than 10 years ago due to a peak in the number of divorces granted in 2001.The decade trend from 1998 to 2007 is shown in tabular form at Fig 5. At 47 963 there were still more divorces than there were in 1988.

Fig 5. Number of divorces granted – selected years 1988 – 2007 (Australia).

	1988	1998	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
No. of divorces granted	41 007	51 370	53 145	52 747	52 399	51 375	47 963
Source: Taken from “Selected divorce indicators – Australia: Selected years – 1988-2007”, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2007

In recent years the proportion of children caught up in their parents divorce has dropped from 57% to 49% (see Fig 6). The numbers too have fallen. This, however, could be a function of postponing childbearing until later in married life.

Fig 6. Proportion of children caught up in their parents divorce – selected years 1988 – 2007 (Australia).

	1988	1998	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Proportion of all divorces (%)	57.5	53.4	50.1	49.8	49.8	50.1	49.3
Actual numbers of children	–	–	49 850	–	–	48,396	44,371
Source: Taken from “Selected divorce indicators – Australia: Selected years – 1988-2007, %, (children)”, ABS 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2007

Top

Looking back over the last twenty years the proportion of divorces involving children aged under 18 years has decreasing but that decline has slowed in recent years (compare Fig 6 with Fig 7).

NB. In Britain we tend to include children aged under 16 and define them as ‘dependent’. In other countries the age for used is 18 (e.g. Australia, New Zealand).

In terms of actual numbers of children affected by parental divorce only figures for 2006 and 2007 were readily accessible (Fig 6 and Fig 7). From other ABS sources it would appear that in 2001, 28,345 children had parents who divorced and in 2002 the figure was 26,820 children. [2]

Fig 7. Numbers of children affected by parental divorce 1984 – 1994

Australia / Year	1984	‘85	‘86	‘87	‘88	‘89	‘90	‘91	‘92	‘93	‘94
Divorces involving children of all divorces (%)	60.9	60.6	59.7	58.6	57.5	55.3	55.6	54.2	52.9	52.6	nya
Actual numbers of children	50,713								24,215
Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2002

For the first time in 20 years the proportion of divorces involving children fell below 50% in 2007 (49.3%). If this is related to Australia’s introduction of shared parenting it will be intriguing to see what future years will bring.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics then displays this trend as a graph (see Fig 8), however it should be noted that the Y axis begins at 48% and not zero%. This means that the visually dramatic fall seen in Fig 8 is really only a 10% fall, from around 60% to close to 50%.

Top

Fig 8. Proportion of divorces involving children, Australia 1986 – 2006. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2006)

The duration of marriages, from inception to separation, has risen slightly since 1988 (Fig 9). The duration has risen from 10 years in 1988 to 12½ years in 2006.

Fig 9. Median length to separation and divorce: Australia – 1988 - 2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

At the same time the age at which divorces were sought also increased from 33 for females in 1988 (the key driver) to 40 in 2006 (Fig 10).

If the American predictions about the effects of shared parenting are true then this trend should be reinforced over the coming years.

Once again the Australian Bureau of Statistics have displayed the trend in the graph (Fig 10) not with a zero% Y axis but one that begins at 34,000. However, whereas earlier trend lines had fluctuations giving undue importance to a trend change, Fig 10 has consistently upwards trend lines and so more accurately reflects the changes in society.

Fig 10. Median age at divorce: Australia - 1988-2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

It has been suggested that women would petition less for divorce if they knew (or feared) they would not automatically be awarded custody of the children. Conversely, this might encourage husbands/fathers to petition in greater numbers. However, this does not yet appear to be the case.

This is underscored by Fig 11, which gives an analysis of those petitioning for divorce. The upper line (starting at 50%) represents women applying for divorce and displays a ‘surge’ between 1996 and 2001. The middle line beginning at 38% shows male applications. Both male and female applicant trends are generally downwards, while, ‘joint applications’ emerge from relative obscurity in 1988 to a dominant position by 2006. Why this should have occurred is not clear unless it is related to some peripheral driver, e.g. legal aid entitlement.

Fig 11. Type of applicant: Australia - 1988-2007. (Source: ABS, 3307.0.55.001 - Divorces, Australia, 2007)

Top

Postscript

Vociferous and sometimes vitriolic opposition to equality in parenting has already surfaced in Australia. It comes not from fathers but from women’s organisations which must somehow feel themselves under threat and a few academics, e.g. Jennifer McIntosh. This threat must relate to the prospect of not seeing their children quite so often and/or with not so much of the monopoly over their children that they once previously enjoyed.

Could this horror be rooted in their own fear ? The nightmare that some fathers/men might do to them what for years they have been wantonly doing to fathers ?

For academics the threat is to their reputations. Adele Horin writing in Australia’s ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ quotes Jennifer McIntosh, a highly respected child psychologist as casting doubt on the efficacy of post divorce shared care / shared parenting. [3] Having invested so many years writing papers and authoring books to now be shown (and over the coming years proven) to have got it completely wrong is worth any manipulation of the facts – certainly until retirement. [4]

The current maliciousness towards equal parenting tends to come from those very people that have for so long demanded that Society treat them as equals.

Those that describe themselves as professional and business women are allegedly opposed to equal parenting – if there are any professional and business women in favour of equal parenting they have so far failed to step forward or counter their sisters. Yet is it not the case that shared equal parenting would mimic traditional couples inasmuch that it would give the former wife and mother, more ‘down time’, more quality time for her own personal needs, more time to focus on her career and profession and generally lower her stress levels (see mental health levels Fig 3 above) ?

The other argument ‘thread’ found on Australian websites and in the occasional feature article is one connected to the perceived risk of violence.

Since we have shown above that this applies to only about 5% of families one might be tempted to dismiss it as a comparative irrelevance. However, since it will be ‘majored’ on by opponents to equal parenting (predominantly by that splinter group in society involved with domestic violence against women, but not against men), its deserves a brief demolition. [5]

The policy of this group, perhaps best described as a ‘clique’, is to stress how Australia is a family-friendly nation, and that as such Australia should remain committed to children (note how Nationalism suddenly appears from this quarter).

The needs of children should be the paramount consideration when deciding custody (note, needs are not specified). But who decides custody in both the present and former regimes ? Adults, of course ! Children – when they are asked – uniformly say they want access to and enjoy both parents.

This clique believes the changes to equality in parenting were premised on ensuring the rights and welfare of parents (and why not, there are two parents and both have rights ?), yet they are unable to see this criticism, circular though it is, could be equally levelled at the previous regime.

Their argument then turns to the new system being awful because it adopts a “one size fits all” principle. From the statistics given above this clearly is not the case and is demonstrable nonsense.

If anything can be labelled a “one size fits all” solution it is the former regime where men were totally excluded from meaningful participation in the future lives of their own children and women almost guaranteed 100% custody.

Had women not so recklessly, routinely and gratuitously abused their position of trust and misused their ‘gatekeeping’ powers, a reform might not have been so urgently necessary.

Examination of the clique’s claim that the new law takes no account of the circumstances of individual families and individual children is rendered absurd by the above statistics depicting the division of custody and the reasons given.

Then, by focusing on the dysfunctional and troubled families (which do exist), their logic is that the new regime cannot be rolled out to those families which are not dysfunctional and not troubled, i.e. normal, as this will somehow be unfair and disadvantage dysfunctional families.

Evidently the proverbial penny has not dropped – one cannot have a “one size fits all” criticism if at the same time also complaining about the new law taking into account disadvantaged and ‘troubled families’.

By freeing up resources these troubled families are able to secure the attention and dedication that under the previous regime would have been rationed or curtailed. By implication this means that the hope among even the most dysfunctional and troubled families of a path to normality will be improved.

Critics of the new shared parenting laws prefer not to publicise how broken and defective were the previous set of laws. Papers from 10th Australian National Family Law Conference held in Melbourne (16-20 March 2002) spell out unequivocally how out of touch the model had become by 2002. [6] One speaker was of the opinion that:

“The concept of parental responsibility is past its use-by date. It should be consigned to the dustbin of legal history, like the Roman law concept of paterfamilias.

Society needs a new standard: that of family responsibility [as opposed to ‘parental responsibility’]. By this I mean that family members should be responsible for each other and that the extent of the ‘bundle’ of rights accorded to each family member should depend on the degree of responsibility exercised in practice by each member, whether such responsibility is accepted voluntarily and lovingly or imposed by the law.

The idea of family should be broadly defined to encompass disparate cultural and social models so that the general principle of family responsibility can be adapted pragmatically to specific circumstances.

Thus I endorse the German law that children are legally obliged to financially support their aging parents, with the concomitant rule (followed in Spain) that a young person should not be entitled to welfare benefits if the family can afford to provide support.
My basic premise also leads me to criticise laws, such as in France, Sweden and Germany, which prohibit a father from totally disinheriting an unrepentant prodigal son. Responsibilities conferring rights, yes, but no rights without responsibilities.

The criticism before Australia changed her custody law – and it’s a chorus in every English speaking nation – is that it would lead to the neglect of children’s rights and an increase in domestic violence. This claim is now being re-laundered in the post-legislative phase. This is a useful indicator to other countries of what they might expect should they adopt Australia’s solution.

That esoteric legion which earns it salary through domestic violence advocacy fails to mention that their concerns about rising levels of conflict between parents is unlikely to occur given that there is now less at stake or to argue about. They complain of “a very oppressive culture that desperately needs to be reviewed”, yet fail to see that only the previous regime was oppressive and created a culture of animosity and ‘winner takes all’.

Surely the ideal of such domestic violence interest groups is to eradicate “the problem” and so work themselves out of a job.

Or is it ?

Faced with unemployment would not the kind of review they seek put them back into fulltime employment ?

END

Top

Appendix A

CASES WHERE MOTHERS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF TIME

• In 60% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their mother.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 68% of cases that the child spend more than 50% of time with their mother.

CASES WHERE FATHERS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF TIME

• In 17% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their father.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 8% of cases that children spend more than 50% of time with their father.

CASES WHERE 50/50 TIME WAS AWARDED

• In 15% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders for 50/50 care between parents.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, the parents agreed on a 50/50 care arrangement in 19% of cases.

CASES WHERE THE FATHER RECEIVED BETWEEN 30% AND 45% OF TIME

• In 14% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their father.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 11% of cases that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their father.
• In 3% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with the mother.
• Where parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in 1% of cases that the children spend between 30% to 45% of time with their mother.

CASES WHERE THE FATHER SPENT NO TIME WITH THE CHILDREN

• In 6% of litigated cases, the father was ordered to spend no time with the children.
• Where the parents came to an early agreement, it was agreed in less than 1% of cases that the father have no contact with the children.

The main reasons for the order include:

Reason	Percentage of cases
Abuse and family violence	38%
Entrenched conflict	10%
Distance/transport/financial barriers	0%
Relocation	2%
Mental health issues	2%
Other	42%
* Not all categories are shown in this table therefore it does not add to 100%. ‘Other’ includes where the reason is unknown such as; the parties consenting during the litigation process, the reason is not covered by a category, or there is multiple and complex reasons.
Source: Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility – Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009

CASES WHERE THE MOTHER SPENT NO TIME WITH THE CHILDREN

• In 1% of litigated cases, the mother was ordered to have no contact with the children.

The main reasons for the order include:

Reason	Percentage of cases
Abuse and family violence	15%
Entrenched conflict	0%
Distance/transport/financial barriers	8%
Relocation	8%
Mental health issues	31%
Other	31%
* Not all categories are shown in this table therefore it does not add to 100%. ‘Other’ includes where the reason is unknown such as; the parties consenting during the litigation process, the reason is not covered by a category, or there is multiple and complex reasons.
Source: Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility – Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009

GRANDPARENTS

• In 8% of litigated cases the Family Court ordered that the child spend time with grandparents.
• In 2% of cases where there was an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend time with the grandparent.
• In 2% of litigated cases the Family Court ordered that the child spend time with an ‘other’ person.
• In 1% of cases where there was an early agreement it was agreed that the child spend time with an ‘other’ person.

END

Top

References

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2002 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/FBC6FEDBB2B43180CA256FAF0071CE3F?opendocument
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2006 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/93C5FC5AF5651286CA2574B30017C7F7?OpenDocument
3. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2007; http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/f356dbb7ea7a96eeca256f10007b6b1a!OpenDocument; http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3307.0.55.001
4. Baroness Deech of Cumnor DBE; Human Rights and Welfare – Do children need a father?, Gresham College – Lectures and Events, 11/05/2009 http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=865
5. Family Court of Australia, Shared parental responsibility – Statistics in cases conducted in the Family Court of Australia during 2007–08, 2 March 2009 http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb6b6e03325f52f/SPR_org_02_03_09.pdf http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb6b6f033263e7d/SPR_org_02_03_09.doc
6. Robert Whiston and Nigel Hawkes; Violence and the invisible sex; In: Straight Statistics – Tue, 15/09/2009 – 09:10 http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/violence-and-invisible-sex

Top

Footnotes

[1] “A Critical Perspective on the Welfare Principle” by Stephen Gilmore (2001). From: The Law and Social Work; Part I. See also “No yardstick for child’s best interest – It would make more sense to probe least detrimental options”, Leonard Carr, The Times, South Africa Aug 19, 2009 http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article17710.ece

Top

[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, 3307.0.55.001 – Divorces, Australia, 2002 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/FBC6FEDBB2B43180CA256FAF0071CE3F?opendocument

Top

[3] “Children at risk in rise of shared care”, 4 March 2008. Sample was small – 77 court cases involving 111 children.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/children-at-risk-in-rise-of-shared-care/2008/03/03/1204402365352.html

Top

[4] Compare Ruth Deech lecture http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=865 Ref. Gresham College Lecture, 2009, and ‘Divorce Dissent’ with her work devising easier divorce laws. See also (judge) Brenda Hogget exponent of anti-marriage, ‘Ends & Means: The Utility of Marriage’ 1980, who then marries her cohabitee of many years Prof. Julian Farrand.

Top

[5] ‘Violence and the invisible sex’, http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/violence-and-invisible-sex

Top

[6] International Family Law Chambers http://www.internationalfamilylaw.com/pub/10melb.html

Top

Benefits of Post-Divorce Shared Parenting (Tromp, 2009)

Benefits of post-divorce shared parenting and the situation in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany

Presentation by Peter Tromp PhD, child and educational psychologist [1], President of the Father Knowledge Centre Europe (FKCE) and Chair of the Dutch Foundation for Children, Access and Equal Parenting (Stichting Kind en Omgangsrecht) at the International Conference on Family and Equality “Justice and Father’s & Men’s Dignity” on 2-4 January 2009 in Drama, Greece

• Download the PDF version

Abstract

All across Europe the child custody debate has moved to the top of the political agenda.The battle lines are essentially the stark choice between mother-only-custody of the child versus shared parenting where both parents are participants in child custody and care. Much is at stake – not just for feminists, who support the former, and fathers, who support the latter, but for children and whether the balanced, healthy society we all seek will become a reality. This is a clash that must be won. It cannot, as American author Warren Farrell famously said, be an undeclared war won at a battlefield where only one side turned up. The question today is whether children in the post divorce scenario grow up to be a liability and burden on the state, or a jewel in society’s crown ? After 30 years of feigning deafness, politicians across Europe are acknowledging the contributions and efforts fathers should be allowed to make to young children if they are ever to be properly ’socialised’.” This cannot be done under the present regime of mother-only-custody found in most European countries.

This paper will address the psychological and emotional needs of children but it will also mention the concrete changes underway. Fathers for too long excluded from the social policy level and denied any input in shaping policy are today making small inroads. For instance, there are developments in shared parenting to be found in Holland, Belgian and to a degree in German family law which I will also cover in this paper. Slowly, ‘outcomes’ for so long championed by fathers’ groups, are being adopted as the criterion rather than ideologically driven dogma. It was just 10 years ago that the consensus was that it was unnecessary for a father to have any role after birth and were increasingly seen as superfluous to children’s needs. Slowly, as society has unravelled, it has been recognised that children in fatherless families run greater mortality and morbidity risks. That their ‘quality of life’ is poor, their ‘live chances’ negligible. Without fathers present they become victims of physical abuse, emotional and sexual abuse, have poor health, poor education, become drink and drug dependent, homeless and jailed.

1. Introduction

Good morning Mr. Chairman. First of all I would like to thank the Greek Men’s and Father’s Dignity Association SYGAPA, the Prefecture of Drama and the Technological Educational Institute of Kavala in Greece for taking the initiative for arranging for an international conference on the equality and dignity of men and fathers in the family and in family law and offering me the opportunity to make the opening presentation at the start of your conference.

The excellent initiative of SYGAPA to organise this international conference in Drama, Greece in 2009 stands in a longer tradition that first started with a series of yearly European father summer conferences organised during the eighties and nineties of the last century by Professor Eduard Bakalar in Prague, Czechia.

His initiative was followed by the International Father Conference in 1996 at Woudschoten and the International Father Conference “In the best interest of the child – reality or magic formula?” in 1999 at Breda. Both conferences were organised by myself in the Netherlands in cooperation with the Dutch ministry of Justice on behalf of the Dutch Association Parents for Children.

Also in 1999 an international summer camp conference on equal parenting was held from 25-31 July at Langeac in France.

In 2000 and 2001 this was followed by two International Father Conferences organised by Mankind in London on the issues of “The age of violent young males – causes and remedies” and “Censorship”.

On 18/19 October 2002 the first international conference on the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was held in Frankfurt/Main in Germany under the chairmanship of the Wuerzburg psychiatrist Wilfrid von Boch-Galhau.

In 2004 this was followed by the European Father Conference organised by the Austrian government during its EU-presidency term in Vienna.

Finally in July 2007 this was followed by the International Conference “Boys and the boy crisis” in Washington DC.

It is a tradition that certainly deserves further continuity into the near future.

But let me introduce myself. My name is Peter Tromp. I am a child- and educational psychologist from the Netherlands and – as its president and international coordinator – I represent the Father Knowledge Centre Europe.

The Father Knowledge Centre Europe (FKCE) was originally set up by Dutch voluntary-sector NGO the Foundation for Children, Access and Equal Parenting, which itself was founded in 1989. Father Knowledge Centre champions the cause of equal parenting and keeping both parents actively involved in children’s lives after divorce and separation.

It works with policy makers, scientists, campaign groups, lobbyists and reformers and aims to make knowledge and information available about the role, the contributions and the efforts men and fathers are making in children’s lives, particularly in raising and educating (their) children. Whether that is in the family – both before and after divorce – or in any of the other living environments where children grow up, like childcare and education.

The aim is to have these contributions and efforts of fathers and men in caring for and educating children better acknowledged and supported on the social policy level.

The mode of operation of the Father Knowledge Centre Europe to these effects is on both the Pan-European as well as on the national levels in Europe. To this end a Pan-European communication forum between the countries that constitute the European Union (EU) – the Familyrights-4-Europe Forum – was established in January 2003, while at the same time the Father Knowledge Centre Europe established separate national branches in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Belgium, with a separate branch in Germany now being underway.

In my presentation of today I would like to speak to you about some of the benefits of post-divorce ‘shared parenting’ arrangements for children [2]. And as a prelude to the programmed presentation at this conference on the history of shared parenting in the United Kingdom [3] by my honourable friend Robert Whiston FRSA, the president of the Father Knowledge Centre United Kingdom, At the end of my presentation I would like to conclude with summary introductions to the situation of – and developments in – shared parenting in the European Union, with emphasis on recent developments in the Dutch, Belgian and German divorce and family law systems.

2. Some definition issues in post-divorce shared and equal parenting

Before elaborating on the benefits of post-divorce ‘shared parenting’ for children I would first have to spend some words on some of the different issues surrounding a definition of shared and equal parenting.

Joint legal custody, joint physical custody, shared parenting, equal parenting, shared residence, shared care, bi-location, co-parenting are all terms and concepts that are being used in the context of shared and equal parenting. They all have different meanings and different legal connotations.

When I am talking, however, of the benefits of shared and equal parenting I am referring to any post-divorce form of parenting in which both parents share in the day-to-day care and residence for the children in a mutually agreed post-divorce parenting plan or arrangement between the parents. This excludes forms of shared parenting that are only limited to joint legal custody without sharing in the day-to-day physical care for the children, as I consider these custody forms to be ‘shared parenting’ only in name and not in practice.

3. The benefits of post-divorce shared parenting

If we look at what available scientific research tells us what the best interests of children are with regard to parenting arrangements after divorce or separation, then the picture cannot be clearer. Comparing the outcomes for children growing up in shared parenting arrangements, having regular contact with and care from both parents after divorce or separation, with the outcomes for children growing up in single parent families in the sole care of only one of their parents, generally the mother, than children growing up in shared parenting do much better.

Better outcomes for children in shared parenting arrangements

From a meta-analysis on 33 underlying separation researches Robert Bauserman (American Psychological Association, 2002) concluded, that children growing up in a form of shared parenting with frequent contact with and care from both parents, had

• less behavioural – and emotional problems,
• exhibited higher levels of self-worth and self-confidence,
• were better capable of building and preserving social contacts and relations, both within and outside the family and
• performed better at school,

than children who had grown up in the sole care of only one of their parents.

Children growing up in shared parenting of both parents after divorce and separation did so much better than children growing up under sole care of only one of their parents, that shared parenting arrangements after separation by far proved to be the “second best” parenting arrangement for growing up children, providing them with a new post-divorce family situation that best approached the ideal situation of an intact family.

From a range of other researches it further became clear, that children growing up in shared parenting of both parents

• develop better,
• are more satisfied,
• prove to be better adapted and adjusted and
• have more self-confidence and self-worth

in comparison with children growing up in sole care of one of their parents (Nunan, 1980; Cowan, 1982; Pojman, 1982; Livingston, 1983; Noonan, 1984; Shiller, 1984.,1986; Handley, 1985; Wolchik, 1985; Bredefeld, 1985; Öberg & Öberg, 1987).

From a Harvard study on 517 separation families over a period of 4 years wide, children growing up under post-divorce shared parenting proved to be less depressed, exhibited less unadjusted behaviours, and achieved better school results than children growing up in post-divorce sole care. (Buchanan, MacCoby, Dornbusch, 1996.)

Also, boys growing up in shared parenting are found to have less emotional problems than boys growing up in sole care (Pojman 1982; Shiller 1986).

Adverse effects on children’s health and well-being of growing up fatherless in one-parent families

The available research clearly shows that children growing up in sole care – mainly fatherless and with their mothers in mother-headed families – do much worse than children growing up in shared parenting.

Children being raised by one parent are at a greater risk for many things as they grow up, including health risks such as poorly controlled diabetes and asthma. (Holmes, 2007)

A Swedish large scale population study on children’s health found that children growing up fatherless in single-parent families also have more depression complaints, use more and earlier drugs and alcohol (binge-drinking), get more accidents and more often commit suicide, than children growing up in the care and with the involvement of both parents. (Swedish population study into the consequences of single-parent families on children, Ringbäck Weitoft, Hjern, Haglund, Rosén, 2003).

And a recent Dutch study (Olde Loohuis, 2009) on the importance of fathers for their children after parental separation and divorce by the Dutch University of Groningen in coöperation with Enova, Consultancy on Emancipation in the Dutch province of Drenthe, found that in the Dutch province of Drenthe 62% of all children in need of special youth care and youth welfare provided by the Dutch state originated from single parent families headed by mothers.

Also a consistency has now been determined between growing up in fatherless single-parent families and the prevalence of children being diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder ADHD/ADD. Children in single parent families are at twice the risk of being ADHD-diagnosed and prescribed with the drug Ritalin than children from intact two-parent families (Strohschein, 2007).

Child abuse risk and “new boyfriend-” or stepparent-risk

Child abuse can happen in all types of families, but it happens most in single parent mother-headed families and in new “patchwork-families” with stepchildren.

Children, especially boys, growing up in single parent mother-headed families are at twice to 2,5 times the risk of child sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional and mental abuse and neglect by either the mother herself or her “new friend”, the so-called “stepparent”. (Holmes, 2007; AMK, 1999, 2000, 2001)

Brought into a situation of social exclusion from the paternal half of their families by the present mother-only custody and care practises in family law and family courts, and with their and paternal grandparents no longer involved or in their lives, isolated children more often <become victims of emotional, physical and sexual abuse or neglect by the mother or her new boyfriend. The devastating results of social and family court policies giving prevalence to mother-only custody and care for the divorce children involved in terms of rising child abuse cases and occurring family-drama’s are now reported on frequently in today’s journals and newspapers of all of our societies.

Effects on children of growing up fatherless in single parent families in the different age groups (O’Neill, 2002)

Children (0-12)

If we take a closer look at the effects of growing up fatherless on the different age groups children (0-12) growing up in fatherless single-parent families have a greater risk of a life in poverty, run more risk on physical, emotional and sexual abuse, more often become runaways from home, have a greater risk of becoming homeless youths, have more risk of health complaints and have more problems at school and in their social contacts with others (O’Neill, 2002).

Teenagers (12-18)

Teenagers growing up in fatherless single-parent families have a greater risk of teenage-pregnancy, to end up in (youth) crime, to smoke, to use alcohol and drugs, of playing truant, to be suspended, of becoming drop-outs and ending their school careers at an early age school, and of getting adaptation problems (O’Neill, 2002).

Young adults (18 onwards)

And young adults, having grown up in fatherless single-parent families, stand a greater risk of not having finished a proper vocational education, earning lower incomes, becoming jobless and in need of benefits, at risk of becoming homeless, or of getting involved in crime, of developing chronic emotional and mental-health problems, of developing general physical health complaints, and sooner have cohabiting relations, more often have extramarital children, only to end up in separation and divorce more often. (Meta-study “Experimenting in living, The fatherless family”, Civitas, O’Neill, 2002).

Parentification of children of divorce in single parent families

British teenage-girls who have grown up in sole care or single parent families reported that they get stressed out and overloaded by the separation problems of their parents, especially caused by the call on them by their caring parent, in 90% of the cases the mother, for support in the fight concerning the children, put up with the other parent after divorce and separation. (Bliss survey, 2005: Girls take strain or parents’ split)

In single parent families it is often not the child who is being taken care of by the parent, but – as “mother’s little helper” – the child becomes an instrumental friend and partner to the parent in distress taking care of the parent’s welfare instead, thus forcing children of divorce into early maturation and depriving them of their youth. This phenomenon is documented in the psychological literature as that of “parentification”.

Post-divorce father involvement in children’s lives makes all the difference

Another line of comparative research focuses on the different effects on children of growing up with either involved or not involved (i.e. excluded) non-residential fathers after parental separation and divorce.

Carlson (2006) found in her research “Family structure, father involvement and behavioural effects on adolescents” based on the 1996 and 2000 data cohorts of the USA National Longitudinal Youth Study on 2.733 10-14 year old adolescents living only with their mothers while their fathers were non-residential that the greater the involvement of fathers was in the lives of their adolescent children, the less behavioural problems the adolescents had in terms of aggression, antisocial behaviour, and negative feelings like anxiety, concern, depression and low self-esteem.

Shared parenting leads to fewer conflicts between the parents and between the child and its parents

It is frequently contested by antagonists to shared parenting that present shared or equal parenting arrangements are self-selective on the issue of pre-existing conflict levels between the separating parents as they are court-provided on a voluntary base of consensus and consent between the two divorcing parents involved.

It is therefore important to note in this context, that the better outcomes for children documented in the quoted research above have also been found in research that controlled for pre-existing levels of conflicts between the parents as a self-selecting factor for shared parenting.

Furthermore it is also frequently claimed and presumed by antagonists to post-divorce shared parenting arrangements that shared parenting is the cause of more post-divorce conflicts between the divorced parents as it raises the level of interactions and contacts between the two separated parents.

The meta-study conducted by Robert Bauserman (APA, 2002) however found that, in contrast with what is usually claimed, the number and levels of conflicts between the parents in shared parenting arrangements strongly diminished in comparison with the number of conflicts in situations of sole care with access arrangements. As a result these lower level of conflicts between the divorced parents in shared parenting arrangements contributes greatly to better child welfare and well being.

Moreover, not only do parents experience less mutual conflicts in shared parenting arrangements, but also children growing up in shared parenting appear to have fewer conflicts with their parents, than children growing up in sole care of one parent (Karp, 1982).

Less loyalty and allegiance conflicts

It is also frequently claimed by antagonists to shared parenting that children growing up in shared parenting arrangements with both parents do not have a place and home of their own (“Do not take away the children’s home”, it is claimed). Children in shared parenting arrangements are pictured as being constantly underway between houses and as being continuously exposed to conflicts of allegiance. Available research however confounds this picture. Children are more flexible – within reason of course – than we expect them to be. What is more important to them is keeping their relations with both their parents. (Steinman, 1981, Luepnitz, 1986, Shiller, 1986, Coller, 1988, Tornstam, 2000).

Children want it themselves

The last argument these antagonists make against shared parenting is that proponents of shared parenting only argue from the point of view of the parents and do not take the interests and wishes of children into consideration. From child-research in which children themselves are questioned on their preferences however, it becomes clear that children themselves also most prefer shared parenting and care from both their parents after separation (Fabricius, 2003). Children themselves most want to preserve and maintain their relations with both parents after divorce and separation. They consider having narrow links and bonds with both their parents as being important to them, while growing up in shared parenting leaves them more satisfied than growing up in sole care. (Kelly, 1993).

Breaking the cycle of broken families: Less divorces and separations

Finally, children of divorce growing up in single parent mother-headed families themselves are at a 3,5 times greater risk of separation and divorce later on in their lives (Spruijt, 2007), thus contributing to a self perpetuating and accelerating cycle of new broken families into the future.

Post-divorce shared parenting arrangements on the other hand however – instead of accelerating the pace of separation and divorce resulting into broken families in the future – also prove to be a valuable incentive for keeping two-parent families together when possible. The more shared parenting arrangements are to be implemented instead of mother-only custody and care after separation, the fewer parents are inclined to go for a divorce. (Brinig & Allen, 2000) This contributes directly to the best interest of the children involved, as all of the research so far has indicated that intact two-parent families are still the best and most ideal setting for children to grow up in and flourish into the jewel in society’s crown they deserve to be, instead of growing to be a liability and burden on the state.

To come to a first conclusion

Overseeing the presented and available social research objectively and rationally one is inclined to ask therefore why sole care and residency at present still is championed, and shared parenting still isn’t, as the preferred default and dominant presumption for post-divorce parenting arrangements in Western family law systems and family court practises? [4] In any other sphere of life such a degree of dysfunctionality would not be tolerated.

Seen from a point of view of the best interest of the child the current practice of sole care in family law should be considered as completely incomprehensible. If we really – and not in name only – give priority and weight to the best interests of children, then the available research provides us with a very clear message. This message is that:

• after intact two-parent families, the outcomes for children in post-divorce shared parenting arrangements prove to be the next best situation for children to grow up in
• post-divorce shared parenting arrangements are in the best interest of the child(ren), while sole care arrangements in single parent families are not
• shared parenting and keeping both parents involved in children’s lives after parental separation and divorce seems to be the only way to go.

This very clear message does not only emerge from the available social research discussed. It is also communicated to us by the civil servants that are in charge of society’s institutions that have to deal on a daily basis with the effects of mother-only custody, care and residency practises and fatherlessness of children.

In April 2008 the British senior judge Mr. Justice Coleridge, responsible for family courts across South-West England, shortly after having passed judgement in the divorce of Sir Paul McCartney from Heather Mills, in a speech to British family lawyers launched a devastating attack on the fractured and fragmentising British society caused by family breakdown and divorce. In his speech he warned British government that family life in the fractured British society was now not only in disarray but in complete meltdown. Quoting from the Daily Mail this is what the senior judge said:

“Family life is in ‘meltdown’.

Family breakdown is a “cancer” behind almost every evil affecting the country. Mr Justice Coleridge blames youth crime, child abuse, drug addiction and binge-drinking on the “meltdown” of relations between parents and children. He warns that the collapse of the family unit is a threat to the nation as bad as terrorism, crime, drugs or global warming.

The speech to family lawyers contains a fierce attack on the “neglect” of successive governments. The 58-year-old judge, who is married with three grown-up children, will say family breakdown is an epidemic affecting all levels of society from the Royal Family down. It is “on a scale, depth and breadth which few of us could have imagined even “a decade ago. It is a never-ending carnival of human misery. A ceaseless river of human distress. “I am not saying every broken family produces dysfunctional children but I am saying that almost every dysfunctional child is the product of a broken family.”

The judge, who is in charge of family courts across South-West England, will say he has a duty to speak out. He will call on the Government to put the family at the top of its agenda, alongside the economy and the war on terror – and make it “rather more important than taking oaths of allegiance”. His speech will say: “Families are the cells which make up the body of society. If the cells are unhealthy and undernourished, or at worse cancerous and growing haphazard and out of control, in the end the body succumbs. “In some of the more heavily populated urban areas, family life is quite frankly in meltdown or completely unrecognisable . . . it is on an epidemic scale. In some areas of the country family life in the old sense no longer exists.”

The judge condemns families with a mother and several absentee fathers. He says: “Single parents often do a fantastic job, but a great many, perhaps through no fault of their own, do not. “A large number of families now consist of children being brought up by mothers who have children by a number of different fathers, none of whom take any part in their lives or support or upbringing. “These are not isolated, oneoff cases. They are part of the stock-in-trade of the family courts.”

Judge Coleridge has spent the past eight years presiding over cases of divorce, children in care and family break-up.”
(Coleridge, Daily Mail, 4 April 2008)

And speaking to The Times of 21 August 2006, Rod Morgan, the chairman of the UK Youth Justice Board, said:

“What many young children lack are any sorts of boundaries being set to their behaviour so that literally they don’t know how to behave properly. There has not been a role model to explain things and to set boundaries. Most children we know like a reasonably structured existence and many don’t have it,” he said. He said that, without change, increasing numbers of young people would be drawn into the formal criminal justice system, a trend that has accelerated since Labour came to power. Between 35,000 and 40,000 young people are today being prosecuted in front of magistrates. Ten years ago many would have been punished informally outside the courts. “What magistrates are telling us is that many young people are coming before the youth courts who, in their judgment, don’t need to be [there]. … — the police are more and more being used as a disciplinary back-up force …

… Mr Morgan blames changes in demographics and the rise in the proportion of lone-parent families, particularly those headed by a woman, for the problems. “We know that the proportion of families where young parents — often mothers bringing up a child alone without the presence of a male role model and a father present on the scene, and without the support of an extended family — are having to cope with more and more challenging child behaviour in fairly deprived areas.” He said that some children were being raised in homes without even the most basic discipline being imposed, such as instructions about what time they should be up or back indoors. That behaviour presented serious problems in schools, where teachers’ confidence was undermined by the threat of being taken to court or by parents who have no regard for authority.” (Morgan, The Times, 21 August 2006)

4. Fracturing societies: the scope of the problem of broken families and fatherlessness

To give a better idea of the scope and extent of the problem of broken families and fatherlessness in most countries of the European Union, allow me to first draw you a picture of the present situation of family breakdown in the Netherlands, as that is the country I come from and know the best.

An estimated total number of 60.000 new children – coming from both breaking marriages and breaking registered partnerships – are experiencing the divorce or separation of their parents in the Netherlands every year (every day 160 Dutch children are experiencing the divorce and separation of their parents).

From a total of 3.2 million children in the Netherlands between the ages of 0 and 18 years old, an estimated 1 million children have already experienced the divorce or separation of their parents. This has resulted in a situation where it is now estimated that 1/3 of all Dutch children are from broken families.

Most of these Dutch children of divorce and separation (an estimated 85% to 90%, i.e. 850.000 to 900.000 children) grow up in mother-only care and residency in single-parent mother-headed families with their fathers being non-resident and living elsewhere.

Measured one year from the time of divorce or separation an estimated 45% of the Dutch children of divorce and separation have lost all further contact with their fathers and are growing up completely fatherless in mother-headed single-parent-families or patchwork stepfamilies. Another 45% of the Dutch children of divorce and separation are estimated to grow up with their mother while their fathers are being marginalised and the children have only minimal, reduced and restricted contact and access arrangements with their fathers of one weekend every two weeks and some extra time during school holidays. (Cresskill, Griffith & Hekman, 1986)

This results in a situation in the Netherlands where an estimated 500.000 Dutch children of divorce and separation grow up completely fatherless (15% of all Dutch children), while another 500.000 Dutch children of divorce and separation grow up with marginalised fathers (another 15% of all Dutch children).

This situation of 30% of children left fatherless or with marginalized fathers after parental separation is prevalent in most European Union countries, including the new East European members. The incidence of fatherlessness tends to be still somewhat lower in Southern European countries and higher in Northern European countries.

For future trends we need to look at the USA, being at the forefront of the situation where Europe is also heading to. And in the USA now already 40% of all children are growing up completely fatherless (Source: Newsweek figures from January 2006).

A recent Dutch research study on the Parental Alienation Syndrome in the Netherlands (Kaplan, 2008) found PAS in the Netherlands to be a much bigger problem than was previously estimated. Some of the main conclusions of the Dutch study on Parental Alienation are:

• 72% of Dutch separated fathers believe PAS to be a problem
• 64% of mothers believe PAS to be a problem
• According to father’s PAS is a severe problem in 21% of cases
• But according to mothers PAS is only a severe problem in 10% of cases
• Overall Dutch fathers consider serious PAS twice as big a problem as Dutch mothers

5. The present status of shared parenting legislation after parental separation in Europe

Current judicial practice of mother care and custody is heavily influenced by John Bowlby and Anna Freud. In the 1950’s and 1960’s this view of mother’s role was revolutionary. The validity of this view has now been doubted and the judiciary has not kept pace with present day psychiatry.

The upshot of this is an over-reliance by judges on their own abilities to be able to award custody in terms of black and white (father versus mother) instead of shades of grey, i.e. shared parenting. The focus of the courts seem to be always in making the grandiose custody statement for children, instead of delivering care and residence arrangements in minute detail making shared parenting into a real possibility and delivering peace between the two adversarial parents by keeping both parents involved in children’s lives.

The present dominant European family legislation and family court practice regarding court ordered parenting arrangements after parental separation, is still a combination of joint legal custody legislation combined with sole physical custody. Courts are giving children to the sole care and residency of one parent, i.e. the custodial parent who is nearly always the mother, while the noncustodial parent is made nonresidential to the children and further put at a distance and excluded from his/her own children by:

• highly limited access or contact arrangements for noncustodial parents (normally limited to one weekend every two weeks, making serious parenting impossible)
• a deliberate policy of non-intervention by the courts when court-ordered access arrangements are broken by the custodial parent, usually the mother
• severely repressive legislation aimed at criminalizing noncustodial parents who do not accept being excluded from their children (stalking legislation, DV legislation, abduction legislation, restrictive injunction orders, etc.)
• fiscal and welfare policies and practices are geared to favor and support children, but only when living with one half of their separated families. This is often combined with extraction of money from the officially designated non-resident parent for support of the “family with children” which the state itself has imposed upon that family.

This choice of discriminative and repressive instruments implemented to achieve social policy goals seems to be common in all countries of the European Union

More and more policy makers are seeing the writing on the wall. The ramifications include rising youth crime, an aging population and a lower birthrate. The well-documented disastrous effects that family law and family court policies have on children’s lives are becoming obvious, with ever increasing demands for larger budgets so that social services can meet the demand of broken families. The consequences of children growing up excluded from half of their families cannot be ignored.

The reaction of policy makers so far – and this can be observed as a generalized reaction to many policy situations today – is to make largely cosmetic adjustments to the present defective system which will take an inordinate time to have any effect (if ever), These types of policy already have a proven track record of failure. To make a mark on the problem, it is not enough to copy failed solutions from other jurisdictions.

Looking at the present trend in family law reform in EU countries (Europe)

We are now witnessing a distinctive shift in the different national family law systems of the countries in the European Union. Following the strong previous family law tradition of single care, residency and custody orders and practices favouring mothers during the second half of the twentieth century (as the only meaningful parent after divorce), There is a distinctive shift towards more equal and shared parenting arrangements and keeping both parents involved in the post-divorce care and residency arrangements for their children.

The first mainly symbolic steps of acknowledging the importance of both parents in children’s lives were based on Article 8 (Article on family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (Council of Europe, 1950, 2003). As a result a post-divorce presumption of joint legal custody was put in effect in family law since the late nineties of last century (1996/1998) in several EU countries, including Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.

The present general European trend within family law reform in European countries is, however, most definitely pointing strongly in the direction of moving away from sole physical custody and care legislation with court practices tending towards joint and equal physical custody and care legislation. Both trends recognize the importance of keeping both parents and extended families actively involved in children’s lives after parental separation.

Let me give you some brief summaries by country on the present state of Shared Parenting Legislation in the countries of the European Union:

1. Italy now has a mix of joint legal custody and elements of joint physical custody since a law change that came into effect on 16th March 2006.
2. France has a mix of joint legal custody and elements of joint physical custody (Residence Alternee) that came into effect in 2002. An estimated 15% of French children of divorce are now growing up in shared parenting and alternating residence arrangements.
3. Belgium on the initiative of its Socialist Party now has implemented presumptive 50/50 joint physical custody legislation (effective bi-location of the children) after parental separation in both its House of Commons and Senate which came into effect when it was formally published by the Belgian Federal Government on the 4th of September 2006. The new Belgian federal law on bi-location will be discussed at more length in my presentation below.
4. In the Netherlands joint legal custody was implemented in family law by the Dutch Parliament in 1996 making joint legal custody the standard for post-divorce parental authority. And with the new Dutch Law on Continued Parenting after Separation (no. 30145), that will go into effect on April 1, 2009, this was followed by the introduction in Dutch family law of the basic principle of the equality of both parents and the presumption of equal parenting (both before and after divorce or separation, and regardless of whether the parents were previously married or not). The new Dutch family law also introduces a strong incentive for separating parents to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan during the separation and divorce proceedings.
   The new Dutch law reform will be discussed at more length in my presentation below. Considering however the poor Dutch tradition on effective family law reform, the mainly decorative value of Dutch family court orders for fathers and the Dutch family court’s tradition of legislating from the bench, it still remains to be seen what this new Dutch law will bring in day-to-day family court practises for divorcing and separating parents and their children.
5. Norway still has sole physical custody but its Minister of Justice has already announced (in 2007) a complete family law review based on the principles of presumptive joint physical custody. Up until now, however, this has not yet materialized.
6. Ireland has, since the advent of Parental Equality (the Irish lobby group associated with Liam O’Gogain) circa. 1993, been considering the possibility of a change to laws of joint physical custody – which gives some gauge of the lack of seriousness with which such laws are being considered.
7. In Germany, a professional court intervention model called the Cochem model, based on principles of shared parenting, is gathering strength. This German Cochem court practice model will be discussed at more length in my presentation below. In this model parents are only allowed access to the family court for parental separation and divorce after they have themselves also filed a shared post-divorce parenting plan agreed by and between both of them.
   The German federal minister of Justice has previously (February 2006) announced future family law reform in which “elements of the Cochem model of multi-disciplinary court orchestrated intervention” are to be integrated into the German family law. Which elements, however, are as of yet unknown. This family law reform at the federal level has, therefore, not yet materialized.
8. Malta also has some form of shared parenting presumption according to Maltese family rights organizations. As of yet, however, it is unclear what is the exact nature of their shared parenting presumption.
9. Spain introduced a new shared parenting law in mid-2005 which is regarded as wholly inadequate by Spanish family rights lobbyists. Government officials and professionals on their own initiative are attempting to introduce policies reintegrating alienated children with their alienated parents and there is a vigorous movement for change.
10. The UK under the present Labour government has, as of yet, no effective shared parenting laws in existence. In his simultaneous presentation at the Drama Conference based on a study of the British Law Commission’s research papers Robert Whiston found that court-ordered shared parenting was commonly practiced in the south part of England in the second half of the last century until it was eliminated by the Children Act 1989 (Whiston, 2009a). At present, the oppositional Conservative Party – which is expected to win the next 2009 elections – has adopted Equal Parenting Family Law Reform as part of its election program. Also some judicially-motivated efforts to introduce norms of shared parenting do exist, in spite of the family-hostile parameters of the present law and fiscal framework.
11. Luxembourg is also said to have introduced post-divorce joint physical custody legislation.

Other jurisdictions

• Australia passed a Shared Parenting Bill in the Senate in 2006 of the window dressing sort. Australia in fact is a good example of the sort of jurisdiction that repeatedly passing pretend laws that are having no real effects on keeping both parents involved in children’s lives after parental separation. And each time it is claimed that the present law proposal will be better than the last, while children of separation continue to grow up in a family-hostile environment. The same pattern can be observed in EU-countries like the UK, the Netherlands and Spain.
• In the USA several states have implemented shared parenting legislation.

6. Recent developments in family law and family courts in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany

Family law reform in Belgium

Belgium already had a presumption of joint legal custody in its family law since the nineties of the last century.

Since 5 November 2006 the Belgian federal law on “bi-location” or “alternating residence” also came into effect after having passed both houses in the Belgian federal parliament. This new law additionally introduced a presumption of joint physical custody, care and residency as the norm or preferred post-divorce parenting arrangement to be ordered by the Belgian family courts. Furthermore immediate unilateral court-access for either of the divorced or separated parents in requesting for additional reinforcement orders if needed was introduced.

Contrary to common belief the Belgian family law reform of September 2006 however did not introduce a 50/50 joint physical care and residency arrangement as the fixed end-result for all divorcing or separating Belgian parents. Instead it introduced a presumption of dual location or shared residency which by law should be taken into serious consideration and thorough investigation with priority in each individual case by the Belgian family courts and judges on the request of either one of the divorcing parents separately.

In the situation where both separating parents consensually forward shared residency, care and access proposals between the two of them in the divorce and separation proceedings, the law puts the Belgian family courts and judges under the obligation to accept those mutually consented proposals as leading in the court-orders to be subsequently imposed in the divorce and separation proceedings.

In effect the wishes with regard to the post-divorce residency, care and access arrangements of either parent parties involved were thus again acknowledged and reinstated at the core of Belgian family law and family court proceedings regarding physical custody, residency and care. By law Belgian family court judges were endowed with the obligation to explicitly specify in their court-orders their decisions and provisions with regard to the imposed post-divorce residence and care arrangements in writing if they were to deviate from the presumptive and preferred bi-location or shared parenting arrangement in their court-orders.

These new Belgian law provisions have put shared parenting at the forefront of the family courts decision-making regarding the care, access and residency of the children involved, while the need and obligation imposed by law on the Belgian family courts and judges to extensively specify in writing in their imposed court-orders as to why a shared parenting or bi-location order was not imposed, opens the possibility for appeal of the courts decisions and motivations.

A further additional but underestimated new element of the Belgian family law reform is the introduction of immediate or priority access to the courts and judges on the request of either one of the parties one-sidedly. This can be activated unilaterally and individually – without the need of being represented by a lawyer at the court-session requested for – for additional reinforcement orders of the court when the court-ordered parenting arrangements were not sufficiently complied with by the other parent and when there were complaints about the other parent with regard to abiding by the specific parenting arrangements laid down by the judge in the original case residency, care and access order(s) given.

Although the law, as a federal national framework, has been in effect for only 2,5 years – and so it is too early to evaluate its effects thoroughly – first impressions are that it has contributed strongly to the Kantian appeasement between divorcing and separating parents in Belgium. This contributes to both the leading civil and family law principle of appeasement between conflicting parties as well as to the best interest of the children involved who now flourish far better under the care of the appeased but separated parents.

Family law reform in the Netherlands

In 1996 joint legal custody (in Dutch: gezamenlijk gezag) was implemented by law by the Dutch Parliament making joint legal custody the standard for post-divorce parenting in the Netherlands to oblige with EVRM Article 8 on the Right to Family Life.

However, shortly after the introduction of the law, the family courts in conjunction with the Dutch High Court neutralised the Dutch Parliament’s specific intent for a law by to keep both parents involved in children’s lives.

Perversely, the judiciary undermined Parliament’s sovereignty by stating that joint legal custody could be awarded but that it did not automatically entitle fathers to contact and access arrangements.

Over the past few years the Dutch Parliament has taken several new initiatives to introduce joint physical custody and equal parenting as the legal presumption for post-divorce parenting arrangements.

The first attempt was the legal initiative on administrative divorce (divorce without the use of a court and representing lawyers) and continued parenting, No. 29676 by parliament in 2004 (Luchtenveld, 2004), better known as the Luchtenveld-proposal [5]. It passed the Dutch House of Commons in the winter of 2005 only to be left stranded in the Dutch Senate in the summer of 2006. This however was mainly caused by the “Administrative Divorce” part of the law being contradictory to lawyers’ interests, which hit on heavy resistance with the Dutch judiciary [6].

Another new attempt for family law reform, better known as the “Donner-proposal”, was then made on the initiative of the Ministry of Justice with the Law on Continued Parenting after Separation (No. 30145). This law while it passed in the Dutch House of Commons in June 2006, on the initiative of the Dutch Socialist Party was unexpectedly altered by a constitutional majority amendment introducing equal parenting as the presumption for post-divorce parenting. On November 25^th 2008 this law passed the Dutch Senate. It went into effect two days ago on April 1^st 2009.

This new law has the following main positive features with regard to shared parenting arrangements and the reinforcement of parenting orders by the Dutch family courts:

• It introduces and aims to guarantee in Dutch family law the basic principle of equality for both parents and the presumption of equal parenting both before and after divorce or separation, and regardless of whether the parents were previously married or not.
• It introduces a strong incentive for parents to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan during the separation and divorce proceedings.
• Adding new but complicated reinforcement possibilities to the toolbox of options available to judges to ensure compliance with court-ordered parenting arrangements.

However, the law also has some distinctly negative features for shared parenting as it once again re-opens the possibilities for the family courts to deviate from the Parliamentary default presumption of joint legal custody. This could give rise to new ways and new reasons for a court to exclude a father from parenting his children. For a more detailed account of the features in the new Dutch family law on parenting after divorce however I further refer to the Appendix A with this presentation.

Tragic history of Dutch family courts and family justice

The tragedy of Dutch family law reforms over the last few decades is best exemplified in its complete and utter incompetence in all matters legislative. What new dawn this Dutch law will usher in for divorcing and separating parents and their children therefore remains hypothetical.

Legislating from the bench

One of the main problems we face in the Netherlands is the persistent interference by the judiciary after Dutch legislative intentions have been democratically made clear.

There is a long history of Dutch family courts compromising parliamentary efforts to find a route towards post-divorce equal and shared parenting by continuing to give preference to sole care arrangements.

Instead of honouring the democratic principle of the Trias Politica in passing judgement based on parliament’s legislation, Dutch judges and courts are instead occupied with taking the legislational chair themselves changing the law and its intent. De facto this places them above and beyond the law set by the highest court in the land, Parliament.

To date the Dutch parliament and politician have not proved to be strong enough to withstand this onslaught by the Dutch judiciary. As a result time and again Dutch politics and parliament in their legislational efforts do try to keep both parents involved in their children’s lives after parental separation, BUT IN NAME AND INTENT ONLY, while in the facts of the matter and the laws being implemented time and again it is proved that the Dutch family courts and judges are turning over the children to only one of the parents to the exclusion of the other.

Dutch family court orders at best only have decorational value for fathers

Another problem is the long previous “laissez-faire” history of utterly poor Dutch family court and family justice performances when it comes to the issue of any reinforcement of the family court orders that have been given adding to a situation where Dutch family courts are among the very worst in the European Union in implementing any family law.

Till now Dutch family court orders have had no executional value or discretion whatsoever. As one off the Dutch family court judges previously admitted herself Dutch family court-orders usually aren’t worth the paper they are written on and till now “at best have only decorational wallpaper-value for those concerned”.

Reforms in Germany – The Cochem court-practice model

Several years ago a family court judge Jurgen Rudolph – based in the German regional family court of Cochem was confronted time and again with two equally capable parents. Both were forced to fight each other – almost to the death – in adversarial court proceedings. His radical solution will be detailed later in this paper.

Also in Germany a post-divorce presumption of joint legal custody was already in effect in family law since 1998, when several years ago the family court judge Jurgen Rudolph (Rudolph, 2007) – residing at the German regional family court of the city and district of Cochem – in his courtroom bench was confronted with capable parents fighting each other with the help of their lawyers (and to the detriment of their children) over post-divorce arrangements concerning the residency, care and access over their children and demanding from him as the judge to decide in favour of either of them. Parents and lawyers from both sides seemed to be only involved in painting their adversarial ‘opponents’ as black and incapable as possible during the divorce proceedings in the family court.

The position family court Judge Jurgen Rudolph took in this was that he considered post-divorce physical custody arrangements between principally fit and capable parents not to be a standard-decision for the family court and himself as the family judge to make and decide on by default over the heads of either one of the parents. On the basis of the lawfully existing care-obligation in Germany for both parents to care for their children the making of physical custody arrangements over their children had by default to be considered primarily as a matter of responsibility for both the divorcing parents themselves to decide on in the first place.

Resulting from the in-fights between parents and their lawyers taking place in adversarial divorce proceedings, the regional family court of Cochem then experimented by changing its family court practises. In the new family court practice divorcing parents were strongly encouraged by the court to first come up themselves with a mutually and consensually agreed “parenting plan” for the residency, care and access to and over their children, as a mandatory precondition before being able to enter and finalise their divorce settlements in the Cochem family court.

As the parents now needed to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan or parenting arrangement proposal, this mandatory demand of the court both not only resulted in a reinstatement of the equal level playing field and cooperation between the parents looking for divorce (instead of the previous court practises magnifying the differences and conflicts between the parents). But equally important, it also lead to a complete practise overhaul within the professions involved in the divorce proceedings in the family court.

Instead of aggravating the parents in their conflict, all professions, i.e. lawyers, social workers, youth welfare workers, etc., began cooperating with each other in order to offer mediatory and other support services and help to the divorcing parents who were in demand of support in making the parenting plan needed in order to finalise their divorce proceedings. In time, the cooperation between professionals evolved from cooperation on the individual case levels to a more structured network cooperation of the involved professions around the Cochem family court.

These changes in Cochem court practises and the resulting changes in practises by the surrounding professionals in the meantime have earned wide recognition in Germany and are nationally referred to in Germany as the Cochem court practises (in German: Cochemer Praxis) or the Cochem model (in German: Cochemer Modell). They are now also taken into evaluation and consideration in a future planned reform of family law by the German federal ministry of justice in Berlin.

Comparing Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany

The separate developments in these three European countries are interesting because of their convergence. In Belgium and the Netherlands developments have started top-down so to speak from the national or federal political-legislational level with the introduction of a new family law creating a national framework and new guidelines for the functioning of the family courts. While in Germany these same developments started not top-down but bottom-up from the family courts themselves experimenting with less adversarial proceedings and court practises regarding post-divorce residency, care and access arrangements and orders.

Of the law reforms in these three European countries the Belgian law reform on bi-location is to be regarded as the most clear-cut in its choice for shared parenting. The family law developments in the three European countries discussed however all share in their emphasis a distinctive shift towards implementing the concept of shared parenting and restoring an equal level playing field between both divorcing parents in family law and/or family court practises as opposed to the previous mother-only single parenting presumption that has dominated family law and family court practises in the countries of the European Union for so long.

References:

• Advies- en Meldpunten Kindermishandeling AMK (Child Protection Agencies Netherlands), Jaarverslagen tot 2002 (Yearly reports on child abuse till 2002), Netherlands
• Bauserman, R. (2002) Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody: A Meta-Analytic Review, Journal of Family Psychology, American Psychological Association APA, Inc.2002, Vol. 16, No. 1, 91-102 http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/fam16191.pdf
• Belgium Federal Government, Wet op de beurtelingse huisvesting (Belgian federal law on bi-location), in effect since September 2006
• Bliss Survey (2005) Girls take strain of parents’ split, The Times – Britain, UK News, By Alexandra Frean, Social Affairs Correspondent, February 24, 2005 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1497111,00.html
• Bredefeld, G.M. (1985) Joint Custody and Remarriage: its effects on marital adjustment and children, Doctoral Thesis, California School of Professional Psychology, Fresno. UMI No. 85-10926
• Brinig, M.F., Allen, D.W. (2000) ‘These boots are made for walking’: why most divorce filers are women, American Law and Economics Review V2 N1 2000 (126-169)
• Buchanan, C.M., MacCoby, E.E., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce, Harvard University Press, 1996-10-01, ISBN-13: 9780674005174, ISBN: 0674005171
• Carlson, M.J. (2006) Family structure, father involvement and behavioural effects on adolescents, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol 68, No 1, February 2006, pp 137-154
• Cresskill, N.J. Griffiths, J., Hekman, E.G.A. (1985), De totstandkoming van een bezoekregeling na echtscheiding (The realisation of access arrangements after divorce), University of Groningen
• Coleridge, Mr. Justice (2008) Family life is in ‘meltdown’: Judge launches devastating attack on our fractured society, UK Daily Mail, By Steve Doughty, 4 April 2008, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557377&in_page_id=1770
• Coller, D. (1988) Joint Custody: Research, Theory, and Policy, Family Processes 27:459-469.
• Cowan, D.B. (1982) Mother Custody versus Joint Custody: Children`s parental Relationship and Adjustment, Doctoral Thesis, University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213.
• Cochem, Arbeitskreise Trennung und Scheidung, Die Cochemer Praxis und das Cochemer Modell, http://www.ak-cochem.de
• Cowan, D.B. (1982) Mother Custody versus Joint Custody: Children`s parental Relationship and Adjustment, Doctoral Thesis, University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213.
• Council of Europe, European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR), Article 8, Rome, 4 November 1950, Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, September 2003 http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/d5cc24a7-dc13-4318-b457-5c9014916d7a/0/englishanglais.pdf
• Dutch Government, Wet op het voortgezet ouderschap na scheiding (Law on Continued Parenting after Separation) no. 30145, Dutch House of Commons, in effect since April 1, 2009.
• Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Listening to children of divorce: New findings that diverge from Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee. Family Relations, 52 (4), 385–396.
• Handley, S. (1985) The experience of the latency age child in sole and joint custody: A report on a comparative study, Doctoral dissertation. California Graduate School of Marriage and Family Therapy.
• Holmes W.C. (2007) Men’s childhood sexual abuse histories by one-parent versus two-parent status of childhood home, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, March 2007
• Kaplan E. (2008), Ouderverstoting in Nederland; Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) en loyaliteitsproblemen bij recente scheidingsgezinnen (Parental alienation in the Netherlands; PAS and loyalty problems in recently divorced families), Masterthesis in Pedagogical Sciences, University of Utrecht, 31 July 2008 http://oudervervreemding.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/00003
• Karp, E.B. (1982) Children`s adjustment in joint and single custody: An Empirical Study. Doctoral thesis, California school of professional psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 83-6977.
• Kelly, J.B. (1981) Visiting after divorce: Research findings and clinical implications, in Abi, L.E., Stuarts, I.R. (eds) Children of separation and divorce: Management and treatment, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Kelly, J. (1993). Developing and implementing post-divorce parenting plans: Does the forum make a difference? In J. Bray and C. Depner (Eds)., Non-Residential Parenting: New Vistas in Family Living, Chapter 7 (pp. 136-155). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Kunst A.E., Meerding W.J., Varenik N., Polder J.J., Mackenbach J.P. (2007) Social differences in health care utilisation and costs in the Netherlands in 2003; RIVM report 270751017, ISBN: 978-90-6960-173-1, in Dutch
• Livingston, J.A. (1983) Children after Divorce: A Psychosocial analysis of the effects of custody on self esteem. Doctoral thesis 1983. State University of New York at Buffalo. UMI No. 83-26981
• Luchtenveld R. (2004) – Dutch family law proposal on administrative divorce and continued parenting, no. 29676, Dutch House of Commons.
• Luepnitz, D.A. (1982) Child custody: A study of families after divorce, Lexington, M.A.: Lexington Books.
• Luepnitz, D.A. (1986) A comparison of maternal, paternal, and joint custody: Understanding the varieties of post-divorce family life, Journal of Divorce, 9(3):1-12.
• Morgan, R. (2006) Teachers have lost courage to tackle bad behaviour, UK Times, By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent, August 21, 2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2321556,00.html
• Noonan, L.P. (1984) Effects of long-term conflict on personality functioning of children of divorce, Doctoral thesis, The Wright Institute Graduate School of Psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 84- 17931.
• Nunan, S.A. (1980) Joint custody versus single custody effects on child development, Doctoral thesis, California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, UMI No. 81-10142.
• O’Neill, R. (2002), Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, A Meta-analytic study, Civitas, Institute for the Study of Civil Society, September 2002 http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Experiments.pdf
• Öberg, Gunnar; Öberg, Bente (1985) Den delade familjen : samtal med 60 familjer om gemensam vårdnad, Stockholm University, Pedagogiska institutionen, Forskningsrapport nr 26
• Öberg, B., Öberg, G. (1985) Den delade familjen, Stockholm: Pedagogiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet, Forskningsrapport nr 26.
• Öberg, B., Öberg, G. (1987) Skiljas – men inte från barnen, Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
• Öberg, B., Öberg, G. (1992) Pappa, se mig! Om förnekade barn och maktlösa fäder. Stockholm: Förlagshuset Gothia. Utgiven i samarbete med Rädda Barnen.
• Olde Loohuis, J. (2009) Fatherhood matters! Exploratory report on the status of Dutch separated fathers (Vaderschap doet ertoe! Wat is de positie van gescheiden vaders? Groningen, Netherlands: Dutch Graduate Doctoral Study, State University of Groningen in coöperation with Enova Consultancy on Emancipation Issues in the Province of Drenthe http://www.enova-ebd.nl/cms/software/showfile.php?action=download&file_id=410&token=49684
• Pojman, E. (1982) Emotional adjustment of boys in sole custody and joint custody compared with adjustment of boys in happy and unhappy marriages. Los Angeles: California Graduate Institute, Doctoral dissertation.
• Ringbäck Weitoft, G., Hjern, A., Haglund, B., Rosén, M. (2003), Mortality, severe morbidity, and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: a population-based study, The Lancet, Elsevier, Volume 361, Number 9354, 25, January 2003
• Rudolph, J. (2007) Du bist mein Kind; Die Cochemer Praxis, Wege zu einem menschlicheren Familienrecht (You are my child; The Cochem practise, inroads to a more human family law), Berlin, 2007
• Shiller, V. (1984) Joint and Maternal Custody: The outcome for boys aged 6-11 and their parents, Doctoral thesis, University of Delaware. UMI No. 85-11219.
• Shiller, V. (1986 a) Loyalty conflicts and family relationships in latency age boys: A comparison of joint and maternal custody, Journal of Divorce 9:17-38.
• Shiller, V. (1986 b) Joint versus maternal custody for families with latency age boys: Parent characteristics and child adjustment, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:486-489.
• Spruijt, E. (2007), Scheidingskinderen; Overzicht van recent sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar de gevolgen van ouderlijke scheiding voor kinderen en jongeren (Children of divorce; Review of recent social research into the effects of parental separation for children and adolescents, Netherlands, SWP, April 2007
• Steinman, S. (1981) The experience of children in a joint-custody arrangement, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51:403-414.
• Tornstam, L. (1996, 2000) Dwelling Choices for the Children of Separated Parents (Separationsbarns boende), Nordisk Socialt Arbeid, 1996(3):193-203, Translation by Dr. Mark Wood, Men’s Rights Agency, http://www.mensrights.com.au/dwelling.pdf
• Tromp, P.A.N. (2006), Present status of shared parenting legislation in Europe, Father Knowledge Centre Europe, Netherlands, June 2006
• Vårdnadstvistutredningen: Vårdnad boende umgänge (SOU 1995:79).
• Whiston, R. (2009a) Children Act 1989: The elimination of shared parenting, Presentation held at the International Conference on Family and Equality “Justice and Father’s & Men’s Dignity” on 2-4 January 2009 in Drama, Greece
• Whiston, R. (2009b) Law is parochial, Presentation held at the International Conference on Family and Equality “Justice and Father’s & Men’s Dignity” on 2-4 January 2009 in Drama, Greece.
• Wolchik, S.A., Braver, S.L., & Sandler, I.N. (1985). Maternal versus joint custody: Children’s postseparation experiences and adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14, 5-10.
• Zohrab, P.D. (2009) The Move to Female Subjectivity as the Standard for Law and Policy, Presentation held at the International Conference on Family and Equality “Justice and Father’s & Men’s Dignity” on 2-4 January 2009 in Drama, Greece.

________________________________

Peter Tromp PhD, Child and educational psychologist, Father Knowledge Centre Europe, Netherlands
________________________________

Appendix A : More detailed summary of the family law reform by the new Dutch family law on continued parenting after separation (no. 30145)

This new Dutch family law was passed in the Dutch House of Commons in June 2006, while as recently as on 25 November 2008 the law was also passed by the Dutch Senate. It has gone into effect in the Dutch family courts on April 1, 2009. Two separate code books of the Dutch civil law are included in its law reform provisions:

a. CC = Civil Code (In Dutch :: Burgerlijk Wetboek: BW in Dutch short)
b. Jp = Statutes on Civil Justice Proceedings (In Dutch :: Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering: Rv in Dutch short)

1. Reforms on the issue of Parental Authority (Title 14 CC)

1.1 Parental authority in this new law now also comprises the duty to stimulate and promote the development of ties and attachments between the child(ren) with the other parent (Art.247 Clause 3 CC).

1.2 The child is entitled to equal care and education from both parents (Art.247 Clause 4 and 5, CC).

2. Reforms on the issue of taking away parental authority (Art. 251a CC).

The judge can however also take away parental authority of one of the parents if and when:

2.1 the child “feels trapped or is in possible danger of being trapped or lost between both parents” (Clause 1 sub a),

2.2 changing parental authority is considered necessary by the court in “the best interest of the child” (Clause 1 sub b),

2.3 the child wants that itself (also when the child is younger than 12 years) [7] (Clause 4).

3 Reforms on the issue of making up a parenting plan (Art. 815 Clause 2 and 3 Jp)

3.1 The parents have to make up a written parenting plan with agreements on:

• the division in the care- and parenting tasks,
• how to inform and consult each other on parenting the children,
• the costs of caring and parenting the children.

3.2 When the parents cannot agree on a parenting plan:

• the judge is at the discretion of sending them to a mediator (Art. 818 Clause 2 Jp),
• the parents can however also choose to continue (adversarial) proceedings on (co-)parenting, the division of parenting tasks and the costs of care and parenting (Art. 815 Clause 6 Jp).

4 Reforms on the issue of disagreement between the parents on issues of joint legal custody (Art. 253a CC) the court or judge can be requested to:

4.1 impose a taskdivision regarding care and parenting between the parents (Clause 2 sub a),

4.2 impose an information- and consultation arrangement (Clause 2 sub c),

4.3 impose a contact exclusion order to one of the parents (Clause 2 sub a),

4.4 impose a main residency order for the child (Clause 2 sub b),

4.5 authorise the police and justice authorities to reinforce the courts parenting arrangements by the strong arm of the law (Clause 5 en art.812 Clause 2 Jp),

4.6 Differences between the parents on parenting issues can be brought to the court unilaterally by either of the parties representative lawyers only but have to be completed in the court within a strict timetable of 6 weeks (Clause 6).

5 Reform on the issue of denial of the right of care for the children (art. 253a Clause 4 juncto art. 377a Clause 3 sub d CC)

The court or judge can deny a parent the right to care for a child when the care provided by the parent is incompatible with crucial best interests of the child.

________________________________

Footnotes

---

[1] Contactdetails Peter Tromp PhD; Father Knowledge Centre Europe; Jacob Cabeliaustraat 17; 3554 VH Utrecht; Netherlands; T. 0031 – 30 – 238 3636; Skype: Peterpan17; E. vaderkenniscentrum@gmail.com; I. http://fkce.wordpress.com and http://vaderkenniscentrum.blogspot.com

[2] Because children are the future of any society, I will take in my presentation the perspective of the children involved in divorce in documenting some of the effects of divorce. This does not mean however that divorces do not also have profound effects on the quality of life of the divorcing adults involved. They do. But – although in most of the psychological literature divorce is acknowledged as one of the main life course events and possible trauma’s – not much research is readily available yet on the exact traumatising effects of parental alienation and exclusion resulting from the destructive sole care and residence practises of Western family law systems and family court practises on the divorcing adult parents. One recent Dutch study documented however that divorced parents count for 48% more of company’s and society’s sick leave costs in the workspace (Kunst a.o., 2007). Also a relationship between divorce and suicide has been documented. This indicates that the costs of divorce for society and companies are still far from being documented extensively and can be expected to be tremendous, both for children and the adults involved.

[3] Simultaneous presentation held at the Drama conference by Robert Whiston FRSA, 2009, Children Act 1989: The elimination of shared parenting.

[4] It is not within the scope of this presentation to further elaborate on the parochial, subjective and irrational reasons why Western family law systems and family court practises instead still opt for single parent mother-only custody, care and residency as the preferred default and dominant presumption for post-divorce parenting arrangements. Instead I refer to the excellent presentations that were simultaneously held on this subject at the Drama conference by Robert Whiston FRSA (“Law is parochial”) and Peter D. Zohrab LLB, BA, BA(Hons), („The Move to Female Subjectivity as the Standard for Law and Policy“), to further elaborate on the critical issue of why subjective, irrational and parochial choices at present are leading in Western family law systems and family justice practises.

[5] The Luchtenveld law proposals embraced post-separation equal parenting on principle and were originally designed to support joint physical custody, residency and care, but in the end they did so only on the principle of it without also factually sufficiently implementing it in the practice of the law, i.e. they ended up being a watered down version of joint physical custody, leaving courts free to continue the practice of sole custody orders. The Luchtenveld proposals ended up as mere window-dressing which is a very usual practice within Dutch “Polderpolitics” (swamp-politics): that is Dutch politics often say to solve a matter by intend while in the fact and practice of the matter they then willingly do not by compromising the law proposals and making them inconsistent. As such the Luchtenveld proposals were no exception to that rule and were in their end-version – after being window-dressed in the Dutch House of Commons – considered insufficient and inadequate for implementing real shared parenting.

[6] This offers a fine example of what is discussed by Robert Whiston FRSA in his simultaneous presentation at the Drama-conference that “Law is parochial”. Dutch lawyers are over represented in the Dutch senate and voted this law proposal down because of its introduction of the possibility of an administrative divorce that contradicted their and their lawyer firms and institutions professional interests in obligatory lawyer representation in court-divorce proceedings.

[7] ‘As to the recent developments in family law and family courts in Europe in which divorce children are now being forced to speak out on post-divorce parenting arrangements by the judges in the family courts (the child being ‘heard’ in the Family Courts)’ the Father Knowledge Centre Europe emphasizes the importance of honouring the explicitly formulated rights of children to have family life and parenting and care from both their parents as these are formulated in the UN children’s rights convention and in the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) and issues warning for the dangers of introducing and institutionalising systemic forms of child abuse when state agencies and family courts for their own legitimacy reasons further continue on the path of explicitly and deliberately bringing children into the conflict of continued adversarial divorce and separation proceedings and single parent custody and care practises and are thus bringing children into a position in which they are solicited into publicly speaking out against either one of their parents in favour of the other parent.
Not only do such family law provisions and family court practices involve children directly in divorce and separation conflicts by forcing them to speak out against either one of their parents, but by doing so they are also exposing the children involved to the immediate risk of emotional and physical abuse by soliciting social, psychological and physical pressure from the side of the parent under whose care they are (temporarily) placed by the court, to choose for her or him and against the other parent.
What is demanded from children, when solicited by adversarial family court practises and family law provisions into publicly speaking out in favour or against one or the other of its parents for court and family law legitimacy reasons, is threatening the child’s or children’s longer term identity and depriving them of half of their identity by forcing children into expressing life-choices they are not naturally inclined to make and of which they cannot yet oversee the long lasting consequences when being made. Further forwarding this new course of action of directly involving children in the divorce and separation conflict by family law provisions and family court practises for solving their own legitimacy reasons, therefore creates severe risks for the identity and welfare of the children involved on the long run and well into their adult lives.

After divorce, kids need both parents (Arndt, 2003)

Source: Australia – The Age – Bettina Arndt – Staff columnist – August 29, 2003

Children are distressed by divorce. Contact with both parents should start immediately after separation, writes Bettina Arndt.

By Bettina Arndt

Constant exposure to the antics of the small group of seriously warring parents who end up in the Family Court has meant that judges, lawyers and mediators often show considerable resistance to more enlightened views of post-divorce parenting.

Take the issue of contact with very young children affected by divorce. Research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies shows that only 38 per cent of children up to two years old living with single mothers stay overnight with their fathers, compared to 60 per cent of children aged 3 to 4.

The assumption made by the court and often replicated in advice given by lawyers, counsellors and mediators is that such young children have only one “psychological” parent, and that overnight contact with the father can provide anxiety by separating the child from the psychological parent. But this assumption is now being challenged.

The notion of an exclusive attachment to the primary parent is based on an outdated view of parent-child relationships, says University of Western Sydney law professor Tom Altobelli, quoting recent research showing infants can form multiple attachments that contribute to their sense of security.

The researchers quoted by Altobelli conclude that infants and toddlers should have multiple contacts each week with both parents to minimise separation anxiety and maintain continuity in the child’s attachments.

Children become stressed by separations from either parent that last more than three or four days, say the researchers, and blanket restrictions on overnight contact for these young children are “unnecessarily restrictive”, given the importance of evening and overnight periods as opportunities for social interaction and nurturing.

Although there is some disagreement about the appropriate frequency of overnight contact for these infants, the researchers agree that even the youngest children can tolerate separation of a few days from the primary caregiver when parents are communicating well.

The great irony is that as family law experts quibble over how much contact fathers should be allowed to have with their young children, these children will not be cared for exclusively by their mothers.

These days, many such infants and toddlers will spend long periods cared for by unfamiliar child-care workers, and will often be farmed out to relatives, friends or mum’s boyfriend, even for overnight stays.

Unrationed care is permitted by one and all – with rigid controls only on the child’s actual father.

But the chances of shifting attitudes in the Family Court on such matters seem slim. A better strategy is to encourage couples to rethink their own approach to post-divorce parenting.

Parents should be encouraged to start a different conversation – without ever going near the court – a conversation that might sometimes lead to shared custody or at least children maintaining close relationships with not only their fathers but other key people such as grandparents.

Instead of writing laws trying to change the way the court handles these issues, it may be better to introduce statutory orders, as has been done in some American states, requiring that separating parents ensure that contact occurs from the start of separation, with the prescribed amount varying with the age of the child.

Such “early intervention strategies” should also include mandatory mediation on parenting issues for all separating parents. To get in early, this could be set up through Centrelink and the Child Support Agency, the two organisations in contact with most parents very soon after separation.

Financial inducements could be given to ensure participation, similar to the participation requirements that are now part of our social welfare system.

At present, when families break up, dad often disappears from the scene and it is often months or even years before contact with the children is resumed. The result is distressed children, particularly young children, miss out on the comfort of attachments vital to their sense of security at this difficult time.

We have to find a better way.

Bettina Arndt is a staff columnist.

Dwelling Choices for Divorce Children (Tornstam, 1996)

By Lars Tornstam [1]

Table of Contents Dwelling Choices for Divorce Children (Separationsbarns boende) Distinctions and Methodologies Early Research on Caring for Offspring The Effects of Divorce on Children The consequences of different forms of care on children Boys and Girls Sole Parenting versus shared parenting What do children think? Visiting fathers and fathers with shared parenting Mothers with sole custody and mothers with shared parenting Policy recommendations and practical advice Footnotes References

In the future one can count on social workers to an increasing degree taking part in counselling and advice regarding the children of divorce and other broken relationships. One can reckon with an increasing percentage, of these children being in joint custody, displacing the custody disputes from a question of legal custody to a question of where the children shall dwell. In this research review, the investigations are examined and compared for their effects on adjustment and development, of different custody and dwelling choices for the children of separated parents. The research results point rather universally to the advantages with that which the Swedes call half-dwelling, i.e. that parents aren’t just in the legal sense both responsible for their children, but also in sharing the daily practical responsibilities through having the children living alternatively with them.

People in many countries have developed a policy and a system of rules, with the children’s best interests as the guiding light, which allows separated parents to have shared custody of their children. A statistic which reflects this are the court/decisions about custody (where the parents have previously been married) which were made in the Family Court in Sweden in 1992. Here shared custody of children was 79%, mothers alone had custody in 19% of cases and fathers in about 2% (Vårdnadstvistutredningen, 1995).

In Sweden there is also a new law being created for the care of children. Previously the courts have been unable to decide on joint custody if either of the parents opposed it. Among the Scandinavian countries, the courts in both Finland and Norway already have that possibility. The trend is, however, undoubtedly that more and more decisions on joint custody are going to be handed down. This can, as the Swedish Vårdnadstvistutredningen (1995) points out, lead to parents, in the future, disputing the children’s dwelling place rather than who has legal custody. This makes it much more important for all the participants, (in the counselling and/or processes of decision making about the dwelling place for children of broken relationships), to base their conclusions and operations on scientific knowledge and proven experience. Lassbo (1994) states that with regards to the family structure’s effect on children’s development, there is too little empirical knowledge and too much guesswork and theorizing.

Therefore a literary search into scientific research on this subject has been undertaken. Mainly, to investigate where science and proven experience stands regarding the dwelling of the children of separated parents, and in particular to look into the question of “half-dwelling” versus “whole dwelling” consequences. Searching via library data bases and search engines on the Internet gave a very poor result with regards to Scandinavian research in the area. The main part of the research which is reviewed here, comes from North America. Against these findings, the argument may be raised that the conditions in other countries are so different from Scandinavian conditions that no relevant conclusions can be drawn. Lassbo (1994) feels that for example countries with well developed social politics, such as those in Scandinavia, cannot be compared in the social political arena with less developed countries. Welfare systems may create, for example, good external conditions for one-parent families to function successfully – which is one of the main messages in Lassbo’s (op. cit.) article.

If one, in spite of the above mentioned objections, considers that children’s psycho/social needs and development are pretty much the same in most countries, we should not ignore studies from non-Scandinavian countries, but instead gain essential information from them.

Distinctions and Methodologies

It must be pointed out that the main theme, in this review, is the comparison of the development of children and their feelings dependent whether or not they live with one parent (whole dwelling) or interchangeably with the mother and father (half dwelling). The goal of this review is not to compare children of separated parents, with those from intact families.

In the English language sole custody is the equivalent of our ”ensam vårdnad”, and joint (or shared) custody is that which we mean with “gemensam vårdnad”, i.e. that both partners have in a legal sense control-custody of the children. In many early (1970’s) works, but also in a number of later works one uses the term joint custody to refer to what we call hälftenboende, that is that children in a physical sense live interchangeably with mother and father.

This means that in a number of studies, where one wishes to study the effects of “sole custody (ensam vårdnad)” compared to “joint custody” proves difficult. This is partially due to the category “joint custody” including cases where the real spirit of the term has been carried through, as well as, cases where one of the parents (most often the father), in spite of the legal conditions, has met the children less often. In a similar way, in a number of cases, “sole custody” in reality has been more like joint custody, as contact with the non-custodial parent has occurred in a legal sense, to a high degree.

If one makes the not unreasonable assumption that it is the “real contact” with children that counts, rather than the legal agreement, which can influence children’s development and adjustment. This means that the above differences found when comparing sole- versus joint custody tend to be underestimated.

The problem of definition was noted rather quickly, and a differentiation began to be made between

1. joint legal custody, where the parents in a legal sense decide together about their children’s schooling, etc., and
2. joint physical custody, where parents share in the daily care of their children.

In this review I use the following translations:

• sole custody = ensam vårdnad
• joint (shared) legal custody = gemensam vårdnad
• joint (shared) physical custody, shared parenting = hälftenboende

Those investigations that have been examined are very heterogeneous with regards to when and how measurements were taken, as well as, children’s ages at the time of separation in the respective investigations. Investigations include children from newborn until 12 years of age at the time of separation, and who were between 3 and 15 years of age at the time of the respective investigations. In a number of studies the investigations were only undertaken at one point after separation, in other cases separated families have been studied regularly up to four years after separation. The sample selection of separated families has also varied from random selection to systematic selection of, for example, families with high levels of conflict.

In spite of all these differences, research results show a great deal of agreement, (more on this below).

Early Research on Caring for Offspring

Judging from the literature, it was first during the early seventies that research on questions of child care took off. Prior to that it appears sole custody, with the mother as the obvious caregiver, was unquestioned. [2]

With increasing frequency in divorce and increasing thoughts of equality between the sexes, came a questioning of the established order with the mother as the natural and obvious custodial person. Joint custody and shared parenting (sometimes called delad vård or växelboende) began to show up as new alternatives to the established pattern.

Warning fingers were, however, soon raised. In a frequently quoted book, Goldstein et.al. (1973) argues against joint custody and shared parenting. Moving back and forth between parents could, he reasoned, create confusion, loss of feelings of roots, conflicts of loyalty, etc.

The arguments were, however, not based on any investigations of the consequences of different forms of care, rather, they were based upon theoretical and logical reasoning. Later research would show that these fears were not justified. Steinman (1981) could for example refute the assumption regarding conflicts of loyalty for children in shared parenting situations.

Luepnitz (1986) and Shiller (1986a) have both shown that shared parenting did not cause insecurity or confusion in children.

In a research review Coller (1988) writes:

“….. it is now clear that joint custody does not pose the kind of threat foreseen by Goldstein et.al., and in many cases it clearly offers substantial benefits to both children and parents.” (p 460)

The Effects of Divorce on Children

That children suffer in divorces ought not to need to be questioned. That they also have a developmental handicap is pointed out in almost all studies. Lassbo (1994) presented a line of studies which showed how children from one parent families in many respects are worse off than children in two parent families, but, presented at the same time a Swedish study which shows the differences are probably not so great.

When it was a matter of psychological effects of a divorce, it has been shown that the father’s partial or total disappearance, which in reality has been the issue, does have negative effects.

Parish (1987) reviews his own and other investigations which confirm that the father’s absence has negative effects on the children, such as, poor social adjustment, anxiety, weakened self-image and problems in school.

When it’s a matter of the social effects, the American statistics regarding the child’s relationship in “fatherless families” has also been alarming. Children from “fatherless families”; run twenty times greater risk of showing behavioral problems; nine times greater risk of leaving school before graduation and ten times greater risk to be a user/misuser of narcotics etc. (Schildt, 1994). Lassbo (1994) suggests that the statistics are over interpreted and exaggerated, but the Swedish research pair, Öberg & Öberg (1992) has through in-depth interviews with “fatherless” children and “childless” fathers, in fact, shown the negative psychological importance of a child’s lost contact with his/her father, which we can never ignore.

Both boys and girls are affected negatively by divorces, but several studies have shown that divorce impacts more seriously on boys than on girls in regards to the loss of daily contact with their father. (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Kelly, 1981; Warshak & Santrock, 1983; Emery et.al., 1984)

The consequences of different forms of care on children

Boys and Girls

In studies where one has compared cases with fathers and respective mothers with solo care of children, one common characteristic that correlates with better adjustment in the children has been the similarity of gender between the caretaker and the children. (Warshak & Santrock, 1983), In other words, girls show more positive development if the caretaker is the mother, while boys show more positive development if the caretaker is the father. However, according to the same source, the development in both of these cases has more problems when compared to well functioning intact families.

Pojman (1982) has found that boys in shared parenting show similarly good adjustment to boys in well functioning intact families. Boys in share parenting showed also significantly better adjustment than both boys in sole care and boys in intact problem families. Also Shiller (1986 b) has reported similar results. Boys in shared parenting had fewer emotional and behavioural disturbances compared to when the mother had sole care.

Sole Parenting versus shared parenting

In Sweden there seems to be, judging after the results of a search, only one study where one has investigated families who, after divorce, have chosen different ways in the parenting question. It is the couple Bente and Gunnar Öberg (1985), both psychological family therapists, who have carried out in-depth interviews with sixty randomly drawn divorce families. Half of these had chosen shared parenting; the other half sole care. At the time of the interviews at least 5 years had passed since the divorce, and children were then anything between 5 and 18 years old. As this has to do with a qualitative study, there was no simple measurement by which one could compare the results of the two forms of care. From the view of the in-depth interviews the emphasis is however, that the picture of shared parenting takes precedence before sole parenting. In a later work, which can be recommended for reading, (Öberg & Öberg, 1987) the authors list the advantages and disadvantages associated with different care forms. The longest and most convincing list of advantages is for shared care. [3]

In those investigations where one has, with a comparative quantitative design, compared the effects of sole parenting and respective shared parenting, do the results speak rather unanimously to the advantages of shared parenting.

Different psychological measurements, have with a whole line of investigations found that children in shared parenting show more positive development – a greater satisfaction, better adjustment, better ego strength and self-confidence etc in comparison with children in sole parenting. (Nunan, 1980; Cowan, 1983; Pojman, 1982; Livingston, 1983; Noonan, 1984; Shiller, 1984, 1986; Handley, 1985; Wolchik, 1985; Bredfield, 1985). Others, for example Karp (1982) have in logical agreement with these results, found that children in sole care had more conflicts with their parents compared with children in shared parenting.

In some investigations however, one finds only marginal or no difference between children in shared parenting and children in sole parenting environments. Kline et.al (1989) studied, for example, 93 children of divorce whose ages were between 3 and 14 years during a three year period after the divorce and found that it was “only” with regards to emotional adjustment that children in shared care showed marginally better results than children in sole parenting.

Children in shared parenting had also, which by definition follows with shared parenting, but is therefore nonetheless important, better access to both parents. With regards to behavioural disturbances and social adjustment no differences were found between those children of shared parenting and those children in sole parenting.

What do children think?

Both Abarbanel (1979) and Luepnitz (1986) have found that shared care is what children themselves prefer, as it is that “family form” which gives the best continuity with both parents and which lies closest to the intact family that they themselves would prefer to see. In a comparison between sole parenting and shared parenting Luepnitz (1982) found that children in sole care, as a rule, were dissatisfied with the degree of involvement with that parent who didn’t have care (that would say in the greatest number of cases – the father), while children in shared parenting were satisfied by their contact with both parents.

In a research review Kelly (1988) summarizes children’s own descriptions:

Compared with children in sole maternal custody, joint (physical) custody youngsters were more satisfied with their arrangements (Handley, 1985, Luepnitz, 1982, 1986) and did not struggle with the sense of loss and deprivation so characteristic of children in sole custody families. (Luepnitz, 1982, Steinman, 1981). Most youngsters considered having two homes advantageous and the extra effort of making transitions between homes to be very worthwhile, because it enabled them to be close to both parents. (p.131.)

Visiting fathers and fathers with shared parenting

When it is a matter of children in sole parenting with the mother there is a well-ingrained tendency that fathers, in spite of the best intentions, appear to pull aside and disappear out into the periphery. Doctor Sanford L. Braver (1995), who has carried out 25 years of research about the effect of divorce reported about this from an ongoing study of fathers’ experiences at a conference in 1995:

…their experience was not one of ‘withdrawing’ at all. Rather, they felt expelled, kicked out, thrust out of their children’s lives. They felt that the system, their exspouses and society’s attitudes in combination seemed to combine in such a way as to just get them out of the kid’s lives, so they felt that the kids weren’t really theirs anymore.

Irving et.al. (1984) could in a large empirical study instead show that fathers in shared parenting arrangements came to take a larger part in the children’s daily lives than they did before the divorce. This meant that children in shared parenting, in fact had more daily contact with their fathers than before the divorce.

Risman (1986) has also found empirical support for the parental sex role, in that it is structurally effective and changes character when the relationship changes. The role of the father is not locked but is flexible and dependent on conditions. Fathers who have a concrete and daily care responsibility change their role behaviour so that they not only have more time with the children, but also be more of both “papa and mamma”.

Mothers with sole custody and mothers with shared parenting

Luepnitz (1986) found in a study that mothers in shared parenting arrangements to a smaller degree suffered “burnout”, compared with sole-parent mothers. Hanson (1985) found those mothers with shared parenting had better psychological health than sole parent mothers. Maccoby et.al. (1986) found that mothers with shared-parenting were more satisfied with their situation than sole parent mothers. Irving et.al. (1984) found that mother’s satisfaction with shared parenting as a rule increased the longer time went by. Karen DeCrow, past president for the National Organisation for Women in the United States wrote on the 1st May 1994 the following in The Syracuse Times:

Shared parenting is not only fair to men and children, it is the best option for women after observing women’s rights and responsibilities for more than a quarter century of feminist activism, I conclude that shared parenting is great for women, giving time and opportunity for female parents to pursue education, training, jobs, careers, professions and leisure.

There is a study however, where the picture is not as light for women with shared parenting. Leff (1995) interviewed 8 women, four years after a court decision [4] against their will began shared parenting. It appears that if they were forced into shared parenting against their will it increased the conflicts which were originally the cause that the parents couldn’t themselves come to agreement in the question of care, so that a court decision became necessary. This lessor light total picture however, writes Leff (op.cit) in his summary that:

Yet, four years later, [after shared parenting began] all of the participants admit deriving some benefits from it. Each woman agreed that the periods of “time-off” from their children provided them with great peace and freedom. All participants were pleased with the new, more powerful self that had emerged.

Policy recommendations and practical advice

Coller (1988) writes, after going through the research in this area, it seems that shared parenting is the form of care that ought to be given the highest priority and be the normal situation. In the condition that there are strong contraindicators against shared parenting joint legal custody with a sole residency is recommended. Sole legal and physical custody should be the very last option.

Contra indications against shared parenting can be a so high level of conflict between the parents that repeated mediation attempts do not succeed, with a pattern where parents are constantly pursuing court processes against each other with the children as a weapon. Mental illness, drug abuse and social maladjustment of either of the parents can as well be contra indicators.

When it comes to the reality of shared parenting Friedman (1994) who is a psychotherapist, with clinical experience of shared parenting children and their parents, considers that parents can neither nor need to be free of conflicts to succeed with shared parenting.

However, one must learn to communicate openly about that one considers best for children. The parents should agree that they can disagree and still care for the children appropriately.

Regarding the schedule for residence Friedman suggests that for children under six it is best to begin with “split weeks” to later go over to a week/week or longer time interval to be with each of the parents. To avoid too much movement of clothes and other things back and forth, with the attendant forgotten things, [potential reasons for conflict], it is recommended that in the beginning to have double sets of clothes, playthings etc.

In the Swedish study of 60 divorced families (Öberg & Öberg 1987) shared parenting pairs had most often decided on a model where children lived alternating weeks with each parent. Some children changed homes more often than once a week. Children were Monday and Tuesday with one of the parents, Wednesday & Thursday with the other, and Friday to Sunday alternating, with each of the parents.

Öberg & Öberg write of this model:

In reality this means that one is five days in a row with each parent during a 14 day period. The schedule can seem more split up than in reality it is.

The advantage with this system is that both children and parents have fixed reoccurring days with each other. A mother can go to a course every Wednesday and know she is always free of children that evening. A child can play cello on Tuesdays and doesn’t need to carry the instrument between homes every week.

Another advantage was formulated by a seven year old: “When one changes so often one doesn’t have time to miss anybody and it feels almost as if one lives together with both the whole time.” (P 74 – 75)

Öberg & Öberg (op.cit.) point out that parents must live near each other, so the children avoid long travel distances when with either parent. Geographically it is ideal that the parents live within the same school district according to Friedman (1994). Furstenberg et.al. (1985) has shown that the shorter the distance is between parent’s dwellings the greater is the probability that shared parenting will function well.

For those of us that take it as a given that children should have their say is Friedman’s (op. cit.) understanding of this question worthy of thinking about. In opposition to the common occurrence in several countries, [5] warns Friedman (op cit), especially in questions of care and dwelling, to ask the children where they would like to live:

…it puts him or her in a no win situation that lasts a lifetime. A child is made up of both parents, Sometimes the guilt of this decision does not set until the child becomes a parent, but it almost always causes a deep sense of betrayal and the nagging “I should have been able to deal with it” when referring to the parent they did not choose.

Also in Sweden, Öberg & Öberg (1987) has come to a similar insight:

We think principally that the question of where a child should live should be decided by the parents […] to allow younger children to choose with whom they should live will in most cases mean that one is putting the child in a difficult conflict of loyalties.

Öberg & Öberg mean however, that at the same time children who are teenagers should be included in the discussions even if the decision for the same reasons as above ought to be concluded by the parents.

In summary, the research results point rather unanimously to the advantage for both children and parents with shared parenting. This is under the conditions that there are not particularly difficult conflicts to be overcome between the parents. A Canadian documentary film, Dad’s House – Mom’s House from the National Film Board of Canada,6 which also showed up in a search of the internet summaries and illustrates the knowledge of the situation very well, without bringing up all the studies which formed the basis for the researchers interviewed, parent’s and children’s comments.

The film is in English, in an easily digested and living form, and can be recommended to those who wish to orient themselves in this question.

The problem is now you understand, how much should we draw our conclusion from the North American research which has been summarised above. One can for example Lassbo (1994) be so careful that one in principal leaves the practical working social worker without anything to say. Once can also, which I suggest, choose to pay attention to the research that exists and come to the same conclusion as Coller (1988) that one in concrete cases should in the first instance try to bring about a smooth functioning shared parenting situation.

---

Footnotes

[1] The article “Separationsbarns boende” was originally published by Lars Tornstam in Nordisk Socialt Arbeid, 1996(3):193-203.http://www.soc.uu.se/plugins/pdfdownload.php?id=1207
This English translation by Dr. Mark Wood was published by the Australian Men’s Rights Agency:http://www.mensrights.com.au/dwelling.pdf

[2] This view of course doesn’t take in the longer historical perspective, where the man had custody and was the obvious care giver, with the exception of the period when the mother suckled/nursed the child. According to Magnus Eriksson’s landslag (constitution) from 1350, children born out of wedlock should after the first three years of nursing with the mother, stay with the father until the child was seven years of age. After this both parents were responsible for the child’s care. This law was in force, unchanged, for almost 300 years. (Vårdnadstvistutredningen, 1995).

[3] List of the advantages with shared care

• The children continue a daily life with both parents, and they consequently don’t become strangers to each other.
• The children feel that it is “Just”: neither of the parents is favoured.
• The children are less likely to feel guilty and/or to miss his father.
• The children get to experience that they are loved and important to both parents, which strengthens self-confidence.
• The boys continue to have a father as a role model for identification.
• For small children with frequent changes can experience that they still live with both.
• The children can feel that they contribute to the parents meeting and have a near and good cooperation.
• There is no risk that contacts with either of the parents will cease in the teenage years.
• It can feel good to “have a rest” from one of the parents (especially for teenagers).
• A divorce is not experienced as a devastating loss, because the child has not lost any love and important person from their daily life. (Page 133)

[4] In several countries, as well as several states in the United States courts have the possibility of deciding for shared care and shared parenting if they consider that this is best for the children – even if, either or both of the parents initially oppose this. If Vårdnadstvistutredningens (1995) goes through, the Swedish courts will also have the possibility of deciding on shared care and parenting even if one of the parents opposes it.

[5] Vårdnatstvistutredningen shows that courts in many countries regularly research the children’s choice. Sometimes this research is connected to the children’s age. In Iceland a child’s choice is considered if they are 12 years of age or more. In Spain as in the Netherlands it always occurs if the child is 12 or more. In France the question is raised if the court decides it is suitable. Age is without importance but children under 7 are seldom investigated.

[6] The film can be ordered from NFB’s London Office; National Film Board of Canada, Grosvenor Square, London W1X OAB, England. Tel: 00944-71 258 6482. Fax: 009944-71 258 6532.

---

References:

• Abarbanel, A. (1979) Shared parenting after separation and divorce: A study of joint custody, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49:320-329.
• Braver, S. (1995) Paper delivered at Children’s Rights Council 9th Annual Conference, Bethseda, MD, March 30-April 2, 1995.
• G.M. Bredefeld, G.M. (1985) Joint Custody and Remarriage: its effects on marital adjustment and children, Doctoral Thesis, California School of Professional Psychology, Fresno. UMI No. 85-10926
• Coller, D. (1988) Joint Custody: Research, Theory, and Policy, Family Processes 27:459-469.
• Cowan, D.B. (1982) Mother Custody versus Joint Custody: Children‘s parental Relationship and Adjustment, Doctoral Thesis, University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213.
• Emery, R., Hetherington, E.M., DiLalla, L. (1984) Divorce, children, and social policy, in Stevenson, H.W., Siegel, A.E. (eds) Child development research and social policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Friedman, R. (1994) Joint Physical Custtody Really Can Work, Michigan Bar Journal, pp 650-652.
• Furstenberg, F.F.,Jr., Nord, C.W. (1985) Parenting apart: Patterns of childrearing after marital disruption, Journal of Marriage and the family, 47:893-904.
• Goldstein, J., et.al. (1973) Beyond the best interest of the child, New York; Free Press.
• Handley, S. (1985) The experience of the latency age child in sole and joint custody: A report on a comparative study, Doctoral dissertation. California Graduate School of Marriage and Family Therapy.
• Hanson, S.M.H. (1985) Healthy single parent families, Family Relations 35:125-132.
• Irving, H.H., Benjamin, M., Trocme, N. (1984) Shared Parenting: An empirical analysis utilizing a large data base, Family Processes, 23:561-569.
• Karp, E.B. (1982) Children`s adjustment in joint and single custody: An Empirical Study. Doctoral thesis, California school of professional psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 83-6977.
• Kelly, J.B. (1981) Visiting after divorce: Research findings and clinical implications, in Abi, L.E., Stuarts, I.R. (eds) Children of separattion and divorce: Management and treatment, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Kline, M., Tschann, J.M, Johnston, J.R., Wallersttein, J.S. (1989) Children’s Adjustment in Joint and Sole Physical Custody Families, Developmental Psycholgy 25(3):430-438.
• Lassbo, G. (1994) Enföräldersfamilj – utvecklingsmiljö, Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift 2-3:130-145.
• Leff, R. (1995) Joint Custody: Implications For Women, Journal of the Phillips Graduate Institute, Vol 4.
• Luepnitz, D.A. (1982) Child custody: A study of families after divorce, Lexington, M.A.: Lexington Books.
• Luepnitz, D.A. (1986) A comparison of maternal, paternal, and joint custody: Understanding the varieties of post-divorce family life, Journal of Divorce, 9(3):1-12.
• E.E. Maccoby, E.E., Mnookin, R.H., Depner, C.E. (1986) Post-divorce families: Custodial arrangements compared, American Association of Science, Philadelphia.
• Noonan, L.P. (1984) Effects of long-term conflict on personality functioning of children of divorce, Doctoral thesis, The Wright Institute Graduate School of Psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 84-17931.
• Nunan, S.A. (1980) Joint custody versus single custody effects on child development, Doctoral thesis, California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, UMI No. 81-10142.
• Parish, T.S. (1987) Are They Affected by Parental Divorce and Remarriage, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4:559-562.
• Pojman, E. (1982) Emotional adjustment of boys in sole custody and joint custody compared with adjustment of boys in happy and unhappy marriages. Los Angeles: California Graduate Institute, Doctoral dissertation.
• Risman, B. (1986) Can men mother? Life as a single father, Family Relations, 35:95-102.
• Schildt, R. (1994) Fatherlessness, World Wide Web: Men’s Issues Page.
• Shiller, V. (1984) Joint and Maternal Custody: The outcome for boys aged 6-11 and their parents, Doctoral thesis, University of Delaware. UMI No. 85-11219.
• Shiller, V. (1986 a) Loyalty conflicts and family relationships in latency age boys: A comparison of joint and maternal custody, Journal of Divorce 9:17-38.
• Shiller, V. (1986 b) Joint versus maternal custody for families with latency age boys: Parent characteristics and child adjustment, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:486-489.
• Steinman, S. (1981) The experience of children in a joint-custody arrangement, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51:403-414.
• Wallerstein, J., Kelly, J.B. (1980) Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce, New York: Basic Books.
• Warshak, R.A., Santrock, J.W. (1983) The impact on divorce in father-custody and mother-custody homes. The childs perspective, in Kurdek (ed.) Children and divorce, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Welsh-Osga, B. (1981) The effects of custody arrangements on children of divorce, Doctoral thesis, University of South Dakota. UMI No. 82-6914.
• Wolchik, S. A., Braver S. L.,Sandler I.N. (1985) J. of Clinical Child Psych 14:5-10.
• Vårdnadstvistutredningen: Vårdnad boende umgänge (SOU 1995:79).
• Öberg, B., Öberg, G. (1985) Den delade familjen, Stockholm: Pedagogiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet, Forskningsrapport nr 26.
• Öberg, B., Öberg, G. (1987) Skiljas – men inte från barnen, Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
• Öberg, B., Öberg, G. (1992) Pappa, se mig! Om förnekade barn och maktlösa fäder. Stockholm: Förlagshuset Gothia. Utgiven i samarbete med Rädda Barnen.

---

Translated and Distributed by Men’s Rights Agency
P.O. Box 28, Waterford Q 4133 Australia
Tel: 07 3805 5611 Fax: 07 3200 8769
Email: mra@ecn.net.au
Website: www.mensrights.com.au