Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shared Parenting

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shared Parenting

    Found an article written about shared parenting, would like to hear peoples thoughts on these paragraphs. Unfortunately I was unable to find the full article and author information, but thought the text below was worth discussion.


    "There is no empirical research to support this model in any but the rarest of situations where the separating parners actually have mutual respect and trust and a sincere commitment to minimizing the impact of the separation on the children. Indeed, those jurisdictions that have implemented shared parenting models in the past two decades almost universally have found them not to work.

    The shared parenting model does not correspond to current parenting patterns in which woman simply continue as the primary caregivers after separation, regardless of what the court order may say; may be contrary to the true best interest of the children.

    To impose a resime of shared parenting iat the most conflich-laden time in a relationship (immediate post separation) is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. Wommen cannot be forced into frequent contract and shared decision making with men who have physically and empotionally abused them or they will simply continue to be abused.

    Mothers may withold access for a variety of reasons; most commonly because they have concerns for the safety and well being of the children in the care of the father and sometimes beacuse the access arragngements would place the mother at risk."

  • #2
    There is a ton of research out there for it and against it.

    Every situation is unique and 'the best intrest of the child' should be the primary determinant. (and currently is).

    The paragraphs you've referenced is only a portion of that article.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sounds OK to me ... BUT look at each paragraph that describes these reasons why shared parenting has been 'almost universally found not to work' and ask yourself if it has anything to do with your current situation...

      1) Was mom primary caregiver before situation? (in my case we split before child was born, so the paragraph doesn't apply)

      2) Did the man physically or emotionally abuse the woman? Is there any proven danger that this will continue/start to happen during shared parenting?
      (in my case no, so this paragraph doesn't apply)

      3) Are the children or mother at risk due to shared parenting (in my case no, so this paragraph doesn't apply)

      Strip off the assumptions and BS, and what are you left with? Shared parenting.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
        Found an article written about shared parenting, would like to hear peoples thoughts on these paragraphs. Unfortunately I was unable to find the full article and author information, but thought the text below was worth discussion.
        Did you happen to be on this site? I found those exact paragraphs on Ontario Women's Justice Network. Being from that website, it is not surprising that those paragraphs suggest shared parenting in unneeded. When you look at a group that either deals with just women or just men, you are going to find all sorts of information explaining why the other gender is no good.

        Instead you should be researching for gender neutral articles, that explain the pros and cons of shared parenting.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
          Instead you should be researching for gender neutral articles, that explain the pros and cons of shared parenting.
          Given that the username is Canadaguy, it is possible that the OP recognizes that the source is biased, but is looking to counter the given arguments.

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes I was well aware of what his user name was, however instead of looking for counter arguments based on what a website for females is stating, the OP should be focusing on articles/materials that are gender neutral. The OP should be looking to present gender neutral arguments, rather than attempt to fight a feminist group.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Berner_Faith;
              Being from that website, it is not surprising that those paragraphs suggest shared parenting in unneeded.
              I read that article and although I can understand why this may be what someone may be left with after reading it...I beleive that the message it was trying to convey is that it should not be assumed as the 'best for the child' in cases of high conflict and domestic violence.

              Just my opinion though

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                I read that article and although I can understand why this may be what someone may be left with after reading it...I beleive that the message it was trying to convey is that it should not be assumed as the 'best for the child' in cases of high conflict and domestic violence
                I don't understand why the concept of a rebuttable presumption is so difficult to understand. Nobody is saying that a woman should be placed in danger. All that the proponents of shared parenting are saying is that, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that shared parenting is best for children.

                So, if you can demonstrate that a particular father is an abusive scumbag, then there would be no shared parenting.

                My question is, do those against shared parenting not understand the concept, or do they get the concept and deliberately misrepresent it and try to use domestic violence as a red herring to bolster their argument?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, gosh, that just MIGHT be the reason why 'The ex' (but not my prior ex's, now friends) answers differently to all of those questions/factors.
                  Last edited by dinkyface; 10-30-2012, 06:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think to put it simply-husband or wife who threatens to kill spouse,verbally ,mentally, emotionally and or physically abuses his spouse and kids should never get shared custody
                    BUT
                    Fighting over the remote is not fighting,critiquing mother in law is not abuse and disliking smelly socks around the house is not mental abuse. A spouse who irritates is not abuse!Too many people bandy this word around far too lightly.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Berner_Faith provided a link, but just to be clear:

                      Overview: Custody and Access and Canadian Family Law by Pamela Cross

                      I believe that this is the author's bio, Biography: Pamela Cross | Springtide Resources

                      The author focuses on violence against women in her career, and has an identifiable bias in her writing.

                      The article was written over ten years ago, and first of all decried the implentation of section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines as being due to the notion that, "Since 1997, in Canada, the policy reform agenda with respect to family law, and in particular with respect to custody and access, has been taken over by fathers’ rights groups. "

                      The first thing to note is the article is out of date. The second thing to note is that policy reform has hardly been taken over by men's rights groups. The third thing to note is that the implementation of section 9 (Note: the section which enables the 60/40 shared parenting set-off calculation) has hardly caused the sky to fall, cats to marry dogs, or single mothers to continue to be victimized by abuse husbands and live in poverty.

                      I could spend an hour taking apart the article point-by-point, but at the moment there is hardly any useful result to it. Every paragraph in this article is easy to refute. Cross repeated uses the convention "There is no empirical research to support.. blah blah.." when in fact there is no empirical research to support the notion that children are better off being raised by a single mother either. Just apply this analysis to every line she writes and you will soon be able to discredit Pam Cross yourself.

                      She makes the bizarre point that "men's rights groups" are lobbying for the set off so that they "don't have to support their children." She is completely ignoring the reality that a father who has his child 40+% of the time is supporting his child equally with mother, paying his proportion share of section 7 expenses, and paying the set-off amount to the mother on top of half the expenses that he is covering directly.

                      Reading between the lines, the assumptions that support Cross' opinions boil down to mothers requiring custody of the children in order to be financially secure, and that mothers should not have to show proof in court that the children are at risk from their fathers; this should be assumed.

                      Then she dresses it up in academic language and relies completely on assumptions that are not only unproven, but are unchallenged.

                      Attaching the label "men's rights" to anything is the equivalent of labeling someone a tinfoil hat crackpot conspiracy theorist. It is unfortunate, but true, and certainly it is partially the fault of men's groups who rely on illogical articles that are not only as unsupported as Cross' article, but also more poorly written. Men's rights webpages are pretty lame. They make a great target.

                      Websites like the Ontario Women's Justice Network are hardly more scholarly, but they benefit from writers with a stronger post-sec writing style, so it looks almost valid. But look closely at Cross' article, there is not a single supported fact in the article. Everything is assumed. She can't back up her opinions.

                      I find this article unfortunate. The presentation wouldn't withstand cross-examination, but it doesn't have to. It is political. We all know that laws and regulations aren't passed due to facts, they are passed due to lobbying and pressure.

                      There are many articles that have been written refuting the ideas promoted by Cross and others. The debate isn't over. The first step is to challenge writers like Cross and show how they are basicly making things up, they are basing all of there arguments on false reality assumptions. The second step is to avoid stooping to their level and support alternatives with fact based arguments.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                        Yes I was well aware of what his user name was, however instead of looking for counter arguments based on what a website for females is stating, the OP should be focusing on articles/materials that are gender neutral. The OP should be looking to present gender neutral arguments, rather than attempt to fight a feminist group.
                        Yes, thank-you for the full article link. From reading it I was aware it was biast, and appreciate the points of view people have provided.


                        Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                        I read that article and although I can understand why this may be what someone may be left with after reading it...I beleive that the message it was trying to convey is that it should not be assumed as the 'best for the child' in cases of high conflict and domestic violence.
                        Name a case that is not high conflict? If both parents are not in agreement it becomes high conflict. A parent can make a case high conflict and go against shared parenting if they want sole or joint with primary.

                        Originally posted by Janus View Post
                        unless there is specific evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that shared parenting is best for children.

                        So, if you can demonstrate that a particular father is an abusive scumbag, then there would be no shared parenting.

                        My question is, do those against shared parenting not understand the concept, or do they get the concept and deliberately misrepresent it and try to use domestic violence as a red herring to bolster their argument?

                        Sure...one parent twists the truth, lies or makes the other parent look bad so they can prove against shared parenting.

                        Originally posted by murphyslaw View Post
                        Fighting over the remote is not fighting,critiquing mother in law is not abuse and disliking smelly socks around the house is not mental abuse. A spouse who irritates is not abuse!Too many people bandy this word around far too lightly.
                        Good point as most people look at this as abuse and try and make a judge see their "side".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Interesting paper to throw into the mix:

                          CUSTODY, ACCESS AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
                          The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard
                          Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D.
                          The University of British Columbia
                          December, 2008

                          http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/181/April7_Kruk.pdf

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Tayken, thank you for posting this document. I had forgotten about it, but it was one of the reasons I pushed for 50/50 "Shared Parenting" with my ex. Even though his lawyer was advising him that EOW and one-day-a-week was his best-case scenario. It took a bit of discussion, many research papers (including this one), a "Parenting Through Separation" course, and finally talking to friends and family who had been down this road themselves, for him to finally agree to 50/50.

                            My main arguement during this whole time was that we were leaving each other not our child. That our child deserved to be raised equally by two parents who loved them very much.

                            It turns out my ex was actually scared of 50/50 because he didn't feel he could be a "full-time parent" for that amount of time. It took a 6 week transition period for him to be comfortable and finally agree to 50/50.

                            For us, this is a scenario in which we all win! We each are full-time parents with plenty of personal down-time. Our child gets the best of both of us and has 2 very active loving parents. Our child knows we parent together and work together to create rules and expectations so there is a very similar routine at both homes. Our child knows he cannot manipulate us against each other because we are a team.

                            Now, even though my ex is a HCP, he does agree to this and 99.9% of the time will (with some "handling") do what is best for our child (once he thinks the idea is his lol). Really, we just didn't work well together and are mature enough to know this and move on with our lives, while we raise a wonderful child together.

                            Does everything run smoothly all the time. NOPE! However, what we have created (and constantly fine-tune), is something that a lot of divorced parents struggle with. We are equal parents in our childs life. For this is in our child's best interests.

                            The result of our decision to divorce is that our child now has many additional people who love them very much. Not a bad way to grow up.

                            (I also want to add the following...)

                            When my ex and I decided to separate we stayed in the same home for about 6 weeks while we worked through what would be best for our child. During this time we lived as though we were already separated and spent as much individual time with our child as possible so our child would get used to only having one of us around at a time.

                            Our child was 3 1/2 when we made this huge decision that altered their life forever. We both worked very hard to explain things as best we could for our child and spend a lot of time talking about the two homes they would now have and about our "new version of family". We made a "family" album for them to take from home-to-home so they could "see" the other parent any time they wanted.

                            Our child adjusted wonderfully to 2 homes and a full week rotation access schedule right from when the ex moved out. In fact, we found we were each missing our child so much when they were with the other parent that we put in a mid-week visit...not for our child...but us! Three years later we still do this because our child loves their mid-week visit!

                            We both worked on constantly discussing with our child the changes and communicating with each other what they were going through so we could parent together as best as possible. This meant we would often check-in with our child to see how they were doing and communicate those discussions with the other parent.

                            The only hick-up in all this was at the six-month mark, during a "how are you doing" discussion our child mentioned they were "very mad" at both the ex and I (our child had just turned 4 and it was just after New Years). When I asked why their response was "because you and daddy have never said you were sorry to me". To this day, that is the only issue our child had about the whole process. That we hadn't taken the time to actually say we were sorry...for turning their world upside down. Talk about an eye-opening, earth-shattering, teary, humbling moment...from a 4 year old!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MiViLaLoco View Post
                              Our child knows we parent together and work together to create rules and expectations so there is a very similar routine at both homes. Our child knows he cannot manipulate us against each other because we are a team.
                              Out of curiosity, is there any child support being paid one way or the other?

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X