Australia, article: Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children'

[vts]

Link to article: Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children' | Courier Mail


Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children'

• Matthew Fynes-Clinton
• November 09, 2008 11:00PM

"LANDMARK laws that promote equal parenting time for separated couples are emotionally damaging children, according to lawyers and psychologists.

Brisbane-based former Family Court judge Tim Carmody has branded the push towards shared parental responsibility and 50-50 parenting time "a failure".
Case study: Read Mia's sad storyHe said the onus to apply equal shared parenting orders was part of the reason he resigned from the bench in July.

"It created a real crisis for me," Mr Carmody said. "I just couldn't keep doing it."

The orders appear to fly in the face of exceptions to the legislation, such as family violence or when equal time with parents is not "reasonably practicable".


Melbourne child psychologist Jennifer McIntosh said children in 50-50 care risked developing higher than average levels of sadness, anxiety, clinginess and other mental health problems.

She said equal-time parenting could be especially damaging for children under three.

"I recently had a case of a two-year-old in week-about care, whose parents couldn't even agree what daycare centre the child went to," Dr McIntosh said.

"They both work full-time. So the child goes not only between the two houses but two day-care centres.

"The fragmentation of this little boy was significant."

Mr Carmody, SC, who has returned to the private bar after serving the Family Court for five years, said only 5 per cent of couples continued to trial after filing to the courts over child custody.

They amounted to the most hostile of marriage or de facto breakdowns.

Yet, under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act, judicial orders for these couples must apply a presumption that "equal shared parental responsibility" is in the best interests of a child.

The changes - introduced by the Howard government in 2006 to assuage concerns about absent fathers - mean both parents are legally bound to jointly attempt to make "major long-term decisions" about their children's care, welfare and development.

Fifty-fifty parenting time is not automatic. But when equal shared parental responsibility is imposed, Mr Carmody says the court is required to "favourably" consider a further order that a child spend equal time with each of the parents.

The amendments were flawed because highly conflicted former partners never co-operated on decisions, Mr Carmody said.

He called for a "non-presumptive best interest-based solution".

"In most cases, (that) would be in a single principal place of residence (with children) spending more time with mothers than fathers," Mr Carmody said.

"For most people (in the past), that worked. Even though dads didn't like it and grumbled about it, it worked even for them."

Family litigation is mostly a Commonwealth matter, determined in either the Federal Magistrate's Court or the Family Court of Australia. "

[logicalvelocity]

Thanks for sharing ... more views can be found here

SPIG - Shared Parenting - overcoming the arguments



-and-



SPIG - the arguments for Shared Parenting



-and-


http://www.spig.clara.net/misc/kelly-82.htm

[got2bkid]

This link provides a very different perspective on Australia's program.

Top 5 Myths About Shared Parenting (Child Custody Laws) In Australia

[billiechic]

In fact it has been argued that these laws have to a great extent "taken the heat out" of the most vexed issue in separation, namely that of a child's residence, precisely because of the more balanced and child-centric approach to such determinations.

Of course they have. If there is a presumption of shared parenting then it is up to the parents to prove that shared parenting is not appropriate. It is much harder to prove that it is inappropriate, as one would have to prove domestic violence, severe substance abuse etc and that would simply cost too much for most parents.


The frequency of change-overs is IDENTICAL in both cases

It's not the frequency of changeovers that hurts children, but the change in stability. If parents ensure that their children's lives are as stable as possible (same school, same friends, same activities , same rules) then shared parenting is possible and preferred. But that isn't always how it works. When parents can't work together then shared parenting may not be the best option, and it should not be imposed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against shared parenting at all. It is the presumption that it is the best solution that I have an issue with. I just don't think there is a cookie cutter solution for this. I don't want the judeg assuming anything before the facts are presented. Would you want your kid's fate decided by "what is best for most"??

[Olderdad]

USA's Glenn Sacks dissects another Australian article in the same vein here: "Aussie Paper Misrepresents Study in Order to Oppose Shared Parenting".

Generally these articles mirror family court tactics: long on emotionalism, short on fact. One wonders what individual or group initiates them, and for what reasons, and how they get published in reputable papers.

Perhaps those of us who have had success with shared parenting should respond to these reporters with a followup article "Shared Parenting Successes are Ignored by the Press and Family Courts."

[got2bkid]

Billiechic "It is the presumption that it is the best solution that I have an issue with. I just don't think there is a cookie cutter solution for this. "

Whats wrong with the starting point being a presumption that BOTH parents are good and capable people and have a right to raise their own children? To me, this is the ONLY fair starting point, with NO negative "presumptions" cast on either parent.

Then, it goes from there and any number of custody arrangements are decided. Because, as you say, a "cookie cutter" approach does not work, this in fact is the exact opposite of the cookie cutter approach. Plus, these articles don't relate the fact that 70% of Australians currently involved in shared parenting think it is working well. No, it doesn't work for every situation, that is why we start on neutral ground for everyone and go from there.

[billiechic]

As brought up before, my problem has to do with what "proof" would be needed to steer away from shared parenting. Just becasue both parents are good and capable doesn't mean that shared parenting is the best option. The history of parenting, the family dynamics, and many other factors play into what is really best for each child and family.

Put it this way. My ex is a good father. He is capable. Under this law the presumption would be for shared parenting. However, he is abusive, vindictive and no matter how hard I try to co-parent, it just isn't working. Would this law force my child into a shared parenting arrangement regardless of these facts? How hard would I have to fight to have the court recognize the situation as being not suitable for shared parenting? Would it do me any good to argue for ANYTHING different than shared parenting?

Like I said, I am not against shared parenting in the least, as long as it really is what is best for the child.

[HammerDad]

As brought up before, my problem has to do with what "proof" would be needed to steer away from shared parenting. Just becasue both parents are good and capable doesn't mean that shared parenting is the best option. The history of parenting, the family dynamics, and many other factors play into what is really best for each child and family.

Put it this way. My ex is a good father. He is capable. Under this law the presumption would be for shared parenting. However, he is abusive, vindictive and no matter how hard I try to co-parent, it just isn't working. Would this law force my child into a shared parenting arrangement regardless of these facts? How hard would I have to fight to have the court recognize the situation as being not suitable for shared parenting? Would it do me any good to argue for ANYTHING different than shared parenting?

Like I said, I am not against shared parenting in the least, as long as it really is what is best for the child.

From my perspective, in your situation share parenting would be the best scenario, and here is why:

1. by your own admittance your ex is a good father and capable.

2. family dynamics are taken into consideration but aren't given much weight because, well...they shouldn't be. Each parent should capable of raising the children. While there are some households where one parent takes on more of a parenting role, the other parent shouldn't be punished because they weren't given the opportunity to do more.

3. your issues with him are between you and him. From all of your posts they don't seem to involve the children whatsoever. So it is an issue where the two of you need to go to parenting-after-divorce classes in order to remedy the issues you two have between you and move forward in the best interests of the children.

Your facts are that you two were incompatable and he was abusive to you, but not the children. You took on more of the parenting role, but you state that your ex is a good, capable father. Why should be denied the opportunity to parent the children at the same level as you because the two of you can't get along??

And shared parenting is what is in the children's best interests.

[billiechic]

I see your point Hammerdad, and from the outside it does look like shared parenting is best. Yes, the issues are somewhat between him and I , but mostly with himself. I don't want to deny him the opportunity to parent his child, just to remove the opportunity for him to control me, punish me, go against what is best for our child just to spite me. How can one parent who is initimidated into cooperation be best for the child? How can you say it is "best" to have shared custody when he has shown that he cannot do what is best for his daughter?

In fact you have just reinforced my point. From where you sit we look like an ideal shared parenting case. But the issues are much more in depth than what they appear. Decisions that are this important to a child's life and future should not be decided by meeting a formula for "x", "y" and "z" but rather on ALL the facts, both the undisputed ones and the ones that are not as easily seen

[quote=HammerDad;42123]
2. family dynamics are taken into consideration but aren't given much weight because, well...they shouldn't be. Each parent should capable of raising the children. While there are some households where one parent takes on more of a parenting role, the other parent shouldn't be punished because they weren't given the opportunity to do more.

quote]

I disagree. If one parent CHOOSES not to be involved, and the child has grown to depend on the other, why make the child suffer by forcing them to all of a sudden lose that stability. What YOU are arguing for is equal rights, which is not the same thing as "best interests of the child". Eventually being with each parent equally is good, but ripping away a child's stability is NEVER a good idea. It's all about building up the trust with both parents, and that takes TIME, not a court order.

I also want to point out that situations where abuse, neglect and substance abuse MUST be considered. You're right, it doesn't matter who took out the trash, brought home the bacon, or whatever. But it DOES matter HOW that came about. If one person acted to control the family, force another person into a submissive role, should the court continue to reinforce that inequality? Should the court award shared parenting to a person who would continue to squash the other parent until they felt they could not longer stand up for what they though best for their kids? How is that beneficial to the kids?

[tugofwar]

[quote=billiechic]

I disagree. If one parent CHOOSES not to be involved, and the child has grown to depend on the other, why make the child suffer by forcing them to all of a sudden lose that stability. What YOU are arguing for is equal rights, which is not the same thing as "best interests of the child". Eventually being with each parent equally is good, but ripping away a child's stability is NEVER a good idea. It's all about building up the trust with both parents, and that takes TIME, not a court order.

[quote]

Good post Billiechic! Not all parents want to be parents. Not all parents are thinking about the best interests of the child(ren).
Some are ok with part time, occasional so why try to take that away from the other parent who is doing everything to ensure that the child is being taken care of and has been making decisions on their own because of lack of interest from the other?
Some parents are just more "FIT" to be parents, to use judgement, to make decisions that are to better their child so why take that away from that parent?
Her ex is just punishing her for not staying together as a family.
In Billiechic's defense, no matter how co-operate, no matter what she does to try to foster a co-parenting plan with her ex, he doesn't understand what he did was wrong, he doesn't understand that their marriage is over and is using the child to get back at her for not wanting to continue with him. So, tell me how that's in the best interest of the child? To have to constantly fight over every decision she tries to make because he can't see past the hurt etc that he is feeling???
And you have no idea how long he will continue to be this way?? Some people get over it, move on and become better people, some take it as they will punish the other person the rest of their lives....

[HammerDad]

I see your point Hammerdad, and from the outside it does look like shared parenting is best. Yes, the issues are somewhat between him and I , but mostly with himself. I don't want to deny him the opportunity to parent his child, just to remove the opportunity for him to control me, punish me, go against what is best for our child just to spite me.

Ok, I understand where you are coming from, but here is where I put some onus on you. You can't let him control you. If you are having issues standing up to him you must, for your own sake, seek counselling and assistance on how to deal with your feelings and find combat techniques to deal with his attitude.

How can one parent who is initimidated into cooperation be best for the child? How can you say it is "best" to have shared custody when he has shown that he cannot do what is best for his daughter?

I don't understand this part. If I read it literally, you are almost suggesting that you are not the best parent for the child due to the fact that you consistantly intimidated by him?? But I know that isn't what you mean. I think you may mean, how can a bully to one parent or something be the best parent for the child. But again, your issues are between you two. You both need to get yourselves into parenting after divorce classes and need to learn how to communicate.

You seem to be giving him too much authority over you. You need to stop listening to him or speaking to him when it doesn't revolve around the child. If you have an issue that pertains to the child, send him an email that explains the issue, your concerns and proposed remedy in a child centric manner. Put in a timeline for response, like a couple days or so, so that if he fails to respond you can take his silence as consent. Outside of that, neither of you should be speaking to each other.

In fact you have just reinforced my point. From where you sit we look like an ideal shared parenting case. But the issues are much more in depth than what they appear. Decisions that are this important to a child's life and future should not be decided by meeting a formula for "x", "y" and "z" but rather on ALL the facts, both the undisputed ones and the ones that are not as easily seen.

The main fact of the matter is that you've admitted that he is a good and capable father. Parenting roles change during a divorce. Parents who weren't generally the "primary parent" turn into one during their parenting time. And in most instances share parenting puts into place means for dispute management where there is an empass like mediation or arbitration.

2. family dynamics are taken into consideration but aren't given much weight because, well...they shouldn't be. Each parent should capable of raising the children. While there are some households where one parent takes on more of a parenting role, the other parent shouldn't be punished because they weren't given the opportunity to do more.

I disagree. If one parent CHOOSES not to be involved, and the child has grown to depend on the other, why make the child suffer by forcing them to all of a sudden lose that stability. What YOU are arguing for is equal rights, which is not the same thing as "best interests of the child". Eventually being with each parent equally is good, but ripping away a child's stability is NEVER a good idea. It's all about building up the trust with both parents, and that takes TIME, not a court order.

No parent chooses not to be involved. Households create roles and responsibilities due to their nature. A divorce immediate fogs those roles as again, each parent is now responsible for taking on all roles during their parenting time. Your focus is on for how long though. You can't argue the fact that he will take on 100% of the parenting role during his parenting time, just as you will. So your issues with stability (which is immediately shot during divorce anyway) and who the child depends on more are really moot, because once the child is in the other house, for however long a time, the child must depend on the parent they are currently with.

So it boils down to time. The issues that exist in 50/50 will be there in 80/20. And immediately when the parents choose to divorce they are "ripped away" from stability. And bringing back your point that the dad is good and capable, is not also capable of providing a stable environment in his household? Or are you linking "stability" to premise that because you were the more involved parent, you are more capable of providing a stable environment? Which to me is a matter of perspective.

I also want to point out that situations where abuse, neglect and substance abuse MUST be considered.

And they will be. The premise is that it is in the childs best interests to spend equally with each parent. Now, from there you look for instances of abuse and if work schedules permit 50/50, and in some cases if each parent even wants 50/50 (those that don't should be shot).

You're right, it doesn't matter who took out the trash, brought home the bacon, or whatever. But it DOES matter HOW that came about. If one person acted to control the family, force another person into a submissive role, should the court continue to reinforce that inequality?

This part brings me back to the issue of parenting roles. What if one parent wouldn't allow the other parent to take a material role in their childs life while married. Should the abused parent be punished by not being able to see their child(ren) because they were not allowed to be involved?

Where abuse has been proven, the courts should take into consideration such abuse and make determinations based on what has been proven and the scale tips accordingly to the abuse.

Should the court award shared parenting to a person who would continue to squash the other parent until they felt they could not longer stand up for what they though best for their kids? How is that beneficial to the kids?

Again, this is an issue where you need to work on and find methods which work for you in limiting this. He can only control you if you allow him. Only communicate by email or communication book and ONLY about the kids.

How you work on yourself will show you how to co-parent with someone who really doesn't want to deal with you. He doesn't like you and I am sure you don't like him. I really believe you both need a parenting after divorce course and should most definitely have worded into any agreement or order that in the event of empass, you are to seek mediation or binding arbitration. And if that fails, you then go to court.

But by saying that because you and your ex can't get along (like 90% of other divorced couples) and that because you feel like you can't stand up to him and allow yourself to be susceptible to his bullying, your children shouldn't be entitled to share time equally with their dad as they do you??

He's a dick, I get that. But outside of being a dick to you, he is a good dad. So again, why should your kids be denied equal time with both parents who are both good parents solely because one parent spent more time during the marriage with them and because their parents can't get over their issues with each other and learn to co-parent effectively.

[tugofwar]

No parent chooses not to be involved.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this. There are parents that walk away from their children's lives everyday, some might return at some point, some don't look back...

Why, either because they just choose not to be a parent or to be part of the child's life for some reason or they know they can't give the child what they need or some other reasons.
In a perfect world, this forum would not exsist, all people would be created equally and everyone would love and always put their children first.

[Mess]

Billie, one thing to add, if you had full custody and he just had access, he would still have the children the usual every other weekend and Wednesdays or whatever. All of the control issues would still be there. You would still at odds over support etc. He would still be calling you. He would still be coming over to pick up the kids, etc. He would still have contact with you and because he is a control freak he would still be trying to use the kids to assert control.

The problem isn't shared parenting, although that will tend to give you more contact with each other (depending on the schedule). The problem is his control issue. The only way to stop the control issue would be cut off contact entirely, which isn't practical or even possible.

To the extent that you can, you can limit all contact to email, and have the child exchanges happen by you dropping off at daycare/school and him picking up so that you are never near each other. This can be done with shared parenting, or it can be done with custody/access.

You have every right to limit his contact with you, and you should use every means to do so. But his contact with you is the same if you have every other weekend, or week on/week off.

[LostFather]

In fact it has been argued that these laws have to a great extent "taken the heat out" of the most vexed issue in separation, namely that of a child's residence, precisely because of the more balanced and child-centric approach to such determinations.

Of course they have. If there is a presumption of shared parenting then it is up to the parents to prove that shared parenting is not appropriate. It is much harder to prove that it is inappropriate, as one would have to prove domestic violence, severe substance abuse etc and that would simply cost too much for most parents.


The frequency of change-overs is IDENTICAL in both cases

It's not the frequency of changeovers that hurts children, but the change in stability. If parents ensure that their children's lives are as stable as possible (same school, same friends, same activities , same rules) then shared parenting is possible and preferred. But that isn't always how it works. When parents can't work together then shared parenting may not be the best option, and it should not be imposed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against shared parenting at all. It is the presumption that it is the best solution that I have an issue with. I just don't think there is a cookie cutter solution for this. I don't want the judeg assuming anything before the facts are presented. Would you want your kid's fate decided by "what is best for most"??

You state:

"When parents can't work together then shared parenting may not be the best option, and it should not be imposed."


Here is the thing, and I'm a prime example of it. My ex took position the onset of our seperation and was her (lawyers) tactic from day one. " The parties can not get along, therefore joint custody will not work"

When in fact I was doing EVERYTHING to try and make it work, and she was doing everything to show it can't work.

I would be criticized for questioning her choices of daycare providers (we did not have an agreement or order) at the time for custody, she would switch daycare providers with no consult or notice, then expect me to pay the penalties, oh and not even tell me she's done it, would get "oh, I forgot or it slipped my mind". She admitted to doing this 8 times over a year and a half, the judge ignored it. She fired one in home (her home) maid, ah hem, I mean daycare provider, same one I complained about 2 month before that she was incompetent for various reasons, she ignored, then fired her for suspected abuse after a neighbor called her. My ex never told me about this, and I have to learn about it through my children, I call her up to see what the heck is going on...she hangs up on me (oh, and I also find out about the new daycare provider through the children), she lets me know the day of where they are so I can pick them up!

I would send her emails with my objections, pleading with her. Anyway, in his decision, he mentioned about the parties not being able to get along, in fact I did everything humanly possible to make it work...why wouldn't I? I mean if you're looking for sole custody and all you had to do is show the parents can't get along, and why wouldn't she? then, wala! The father and children have just been screwed, didn't even get dinner and a movie.

SO from my preseptive, that pharse is too much of an weapon for the side wanting sole custody, and again, I'm a prime example of that hum dinger.

[LostFather]

Billie, one thing to add, if you had full custody and he just had access, he would still have the children the usual every other weekend and Wednesdays or whatever. All of the control issues would still be there. You would still at odds over support etc. He would still be calling you. He would still be coming over to pick up the kids, etc. He would still have contact with you and because he is a control freak he would still be trying to use the kids to assert control.

The problem isn't shared parenting, although that will tend to give you more contact with each other (depending on the schedule). The problem is his control issue. The only way to stop the control issue would be cut off contact entirely, which isn't practical or even possible.

To the extent that you can, you can limit all contact to email, and have the child exchanges happen by you dropping off at daycare/school and him picking up so that you are never near each other. This can be done with shared parenting, or it can be done with custody/access.

You have every right to limit his contact with you, and you should use every means to do so. But his contact with you is the same if you have every other weekend, or week on/week off.

I agree, it's very rare that I have to see my ex's face, usually pick up is at the daycare provider or school for the most part. Telephone message and emails/voice mails. IF you really want it to stop YOU can find a way! Or at least limit as much as possible.