Not every circumstance occurring in our culture should be subject to an election as if it were a constitutionally guaranteed choice; some conditions are, to the contrary, an inalienable right, such as a child’s right to each parent equally after divorce.
I had intended for my next article to be a definition of the Parental Alienation Syndrome, but that will have to be momentarily deferred. I felt the necessity to comment, instead, the shared parenting law in Arizona, and I must extend my accolades to Mike Espinoza for his indefatigable and self-divulging efforts to facilitate its passage. Being neither a politician nor a mental health professional, Mike took up the cause as a loving, dedicated, and supportive father who had become a victim of the PAS.
Why Equal Parenting Time After Divorce Should Be The Norm
When we select a partner it is generally on the basis of what my mentor, child psychiatrist Salvador Minuchin, labeled as “complementarity.” In non-professional terminology, it is how we each balance our strengths and weaknesses with those of our partner. In other words, we tend to select a partner who compensates for our weaknesses, and they likewise do the same.
It is, therefore, logical to conclude that the most appropriate decisions affecting children are arrived at when the parents do so collaboratively, with each parent drawing on their respective strengths and abilities. Neither parent must feel that he/she surrendered to the other parent’s will because the struggle to reach an accord became too great.
In my 17 years of practice as a family therapist, I have documented a wealth of anecdotal evidence that confirms that parental collaboration almost always facilitates the child’s optimal development and achieves the desired results. The post-divorce situation most assuredly requires the same parental collaboration so that the child continues to benefit from the strengths that had been provided by the parent who becomes the nonresidential parent.
Regrettably, however, this collaboration is undermined by our adversarial approach to the resolution of child custody. Sole custody tends to be more the norm rather than joint custody; and even in those situations when joint legal custody is awarded, the residential parent often usurps with impunity the authority of the other parent. And, of course, this selection is predicated upon having to make a choice as to who would presumably (and I emphasize presumably) be the better parent.
Despite the obvious benefit of parental collaboration to children, which the research is now supporting, shared parenting is not without its critics and controversy. For example, the Arizona Foundation for Women CEO, Jodi Ligget, qualified the applicability of the law to those parental relationships that have minimal conflict.
She further asserted that the basis for custody decisions ought to be determined by the standard of the best interests of the child. But as this author/therapist stated in her prior article, I maintain that marginalizing one parent while elevating the other cannot achieve the best interest of the child, except in those situations of substantiated serious social deviancy and/or mental illness of one of the parents.
Yet other skeptics of the law have argued that, if the parents were capable of engaging in a collaborative co-parenting relationship, they would have sought out mediation rather than litigation.
Let me respond to this criticism by drawing on the wisdom of my sociology professor, Edward Sagarin. It was 1965, and the class was debating the implementation of the recently enacted Civil Rights Act. One of my classmates offered the following analysis, “You cannot legislate morality. Therefore, the legislation will fail.” Professor Sagarin responded, “You are correct that you cannot legislate morality. But the Civil Rights Act is not about morality; it is about behavior. And behavior can most definitely be legislated and can be enforced with the appropriate consequences.”
Professor Sagarin was very wise. We must be judiciously selective, even though our government is a democracy, as to when it is appropriate to provide its citizens with a choice. The Bill of Rights, for example, which was frequently invoked by Professor Sagarin throughout Sociology 101, protects minority rights from abuse by the vote of the majority.
Equal Parenting Time After Divorce How novel!
I am advocating that there be no choice for sole custody or for primary residency. Such choices must be off the table, no option! We should deem, forthwith, that it be the child’s civil rights to an equal relationship with each parent.
When the child’s parents, who are generally quite law-abiding, rational citizens in all other aspects, engage in the destructive, adversarial behaviors that so frequently occur in divorce situations, it is only because they believe they can get away with such behaviors. And they usually do. Even the not-so-rational parent, who engages in alienating behaviors, is effective in achieving alienation because of the cavalier, indifferent, and/or self-interested professional who enables and emboldens her/him.
I am proposing, therefore that every child of divorce has the right to say, “I need and desire that the two most important people in my life continue to parent me collaboratively through shared parenting. I have a right to expect that you will subvert your animosity for each other to your love for me. Doing so will inevitably produce results which are in my best interest.”
This is utterfly absurd! There is no cookie cutter solution for parental custody. My ex walked out on our family, in order to pursue a relationship with his extramarital affair partner. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he is incapable of putting the children’s needs first. There is no scenario under which it would be healthy or convenient to have a 50/50 shared coparenting scenario with him. It would actually be detrimental to the children. And among my many divorced friends, I think is the overwhelming consensus.
100 percent agree with Acestace. Every family situation is unique and kids best interests often fall short in family court. Kids die every day because of failures in family court, and yes, reform is badly needed. The Pollyanna attitude expressed in the article is misguided. Many of us deal with high conflict divorces, abandonment, deceit, abuse, mental health issues, addiction, etc. – which require individualized solutions. Solutions where the kids’ emotional, psychological and physical well-being is at the forefront. Unfortunately, politics and special interest groups have too much sway.
Sorry. Totally disagree. If the other parent is toxic, children should absolutely not have parenting rights.
What FRG group paid you off to write this garbage? As the above commentor stated, “There is no cookie cutter solution for parental custody.” We have a crisis here in America of children abandoned post divorce by one parent and the other parent left to bear the burden of parenting alone. In addition to the emotional cost, consider the financial burden- over $117 BILLION dollars on the books in unpaid child support. Childhood poverty #’s skyrocketing and medicaid collapsing under the burden of costs for children who would not have needed or even qualified for such assisstance if child and medical support was enforced. You quote Edward Sagarin stating, “behaviour can be legislated and enforced with appropriate consequences.” Well there are very few consequences for unpaid child/medical support. $117 + Billion in arrreas proves that… Google “how to get out of paying child support” and you will be treated to dozens of articles and attorney web links for “50/50”. What should be the norm for parents who CAN coparent has now become a way to ditch responsiblity on American taxpayers.
You are correct, but you will receive a lot of abuse for saying this.
Remove the monetary and revenge motivations for litigation, and you will instantly remove 99% of parental conflict.
I agree with the first commenter. This author did not consider the situation of abandonment. My husband left slowly (coming home less and less, being gone for longer and longer periods of time “for work”) over a period of two years. Then he was basically absent from our children’s lives for another 3 years while he re-invented himself with a new family. Our kids are now 14 and 16 and don’t want to see him. I have convinced them to let him drive them places or drive to school to keep some form of contact but they don’t trust him. Children of this age also priorize social time with friends (that is normal) and, in my case, academics and activities. A forced 50/50 in this case would be disasterous for my children. This is not a case of parental alientation (heaven knows I would welcome a break!) but a case of his bad behavior, callous disregard and cowardice coming back to haunt him. This author is gravely off the mark for almost all of the divorce situations that I know of. She must live in a world of amicable divorce where th children are not abandoned, physically, emotionally and financially. My children have had to move and their quality of life has absolutely been adversely affected. This author needs to look at real world examples.
I call bullshit!
While there most definitely are couples who use litigation and monetary gain as well as poisoning their child/children against the other parent out of anger and resentment, there are MANY, MANY who do not.
We used mediation. I get the minimum for child support while he can definitely afford more but doesn’t. That’s a choice. He makes almost three times what I make. I foot the medical benefits, pay the bills and take care of everything else. His child support weekly equates to grocery money. And while we do not have the typical visitation schedule due to his job and hours, he has moved over an hour away. BY CHOICE. He does not use all of his parenting time. BY CHOICE. Until I had probation garnish his wages, he let his children go without support for weeks at a time. He inconsistently contacts them during the week.
Christmas here at home, I bust my ass to give them a great Christmas as we don’t have a lot of family and they don’t get a lot during the year. He gets them one or two gifts with little thought even after he has to ask me what to get them because he hasn’t a clue!
While I maintain the majority of parenting it was also like this while we were married.
The norm is not parental alienation. The norm is parental deficit and lack of consistency on many parents parts and typically, though not always it’s the father doing so. While I know many hands on dads who actively take responsibility for raising their children, I know of many more who have a second parent that gives up their responsibility and their time VOLUNTARILY. My ex would rather have his second day off to himself then spend it with his children. For the past several years since were separated/divorced he has done so. I don’t take days “off” from parenting. I work and I come home. I rarely have a social life – BY CHOICE because I prefer to be home with my kids then go out. I am at their events, their good days and bad days. When theyre sick it’s me who picks them up from school, goes to the doctor or the hospital and it’s me who cares for them. I receive sarcastic comments and digs at my parenting from him and yet he is the one MIA.
My children are old enough to understand and they CLEARLY see the contrast in their parents. I don’t have to say a word.
How many mothers are raising children with inadequate support because a former partner hides money or just doesn’t pay their share? Way too many.
This article is biased and full of crap. While I do believe their should be fairness to parents who actually put their children first, do not condem the parents who are doing their best, kicking ass and making it alone and lump it in with parental alienation.
My ex husband and I share parenting time equally. It works for us and our kids. We have fewer handover that our friend who use the parent/visitor model. We could have saved a lot of angst and legal fees if he was assured that the starting point for negotiating a parenting plan, and the most likely end point for two good parents, was equal parenting time.
Of course, if there is an issue, then it has to be dealt with, and equal (or maybe even any) parenting time might not be appropriate. I’m skeptical of those who claim that starting at 50/50 is harmful for the kids because it makes it harder for moms to get custody in abusive situations. What about when mom is the problem (my husband went through this with his ex wife)? How are kids protected in those situations when the dad starts off at a disadvantage?
Totally disagree.. Children need some stability..not being treated as ping pong ball