One of the main reasons that judges do not automatically award equal parenting in custody decisions is because of their concern about the conflict between the parents and the harm it will do to the children. In previous work, (see blog post on this work) researchers at Arizona State University found that the general public generally favors custody decisions that award both parents equal time in custody decisions, but many custody battles involve conflict between parents. When conflict persists among divorcing parents, most judges and custody evaluators have recommended against shared parenting in order to keep children out of the conflict.
In this study, Braver and his colleagues wanted to find out how the public thinks custody decisions should be handled in which there is conflict. (See Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2011).
To examine these questions, the researchers developed hypothetical cases that described a low conflict scenario and two types of high conflict scenarios. In the low conflict case, the parents were described as reasonably good parents who are involved in the children's lives. There were two types of high conflict cases, one in which both parents were described as extremely angry at each other and fight in front of the children. In the second case only one parent was angry. Half the time this was presented as the father and half the time as the mother.
These cases were presented to citizens who had been summoned to serve on a jury panel in an Arizona community. About 250 people participated in this study. The participants were given the hypothetical cases, and then asked to imagine themselves as the judge deciding these cases based on the merits of the cases and what was best for the child. In each case they were asked how much time the child should spend with each parent.
In both the case of low conflict and high mutual conflict, the participants in this study favored awarding both parents equal time (about 65%). This finding indicates that almost two-thirds of the public still favors equal parenting time even in cases in which there is continued conflict. There was not complete consensus on this arrangement however. The remaining one-third of the participants were more likely to favor having the children live with the mother and reduce the amount of time that the dad got time with the children. This group of participants favored awarding more parenting time to the mother in conflicts in which both parents were described as angry and fighting.
When the cases were presented in which one parent was described as the cause of the conflict, then participants recommended that the parent causing the conflict should get less parenting time. The participants did not differ in their judgments about mothers and fathers. Regardless of whether it was the mother or the father was the source of the conflict, participants thought they should get less time with the child if they were angry, fighting and causing conflict.
These views of custody in high conflict divorces run counter to the views of most professionals. When families are embroiled in conflict during the divorce, they recommend that children be given primary custody with one parent. This is based on the evidence that conflict between parents is one of the most damaging factors in children's well-being during a family breakup. Professionals assume that the parents will not be able to resolve their conflicts resulting in the children being continually exposed to angry, bitter altercations. The findings in this study indicate that the general public does not hold this view. The researchers conclude, "Family lawmakers need to confront that equal custody enjoys genuinely great popularity among the citizenry."
http://fathersprivilege.blogspot.com/2011/07/fathers-plea-for-help.html
Thanks,
Wayne
http://DivorceMinistry4Kids.com
First of all, that approach actually incentivizes conflict. A parent wanting an unequal award of custody has not only an incentive to create conflict, but also eliminates the incentive to resolve anything.
Second, at the heart of the very nature of conflict is a perceived imbalance of some sort. Nations go to war over conflict based on perceptions of an intrusion upon interests. Conflict in a divorce is often caused because one or both sides believes the other is pursuing more than their fair shake in the divorce. Awarding unequal custody because of this conflict--far from doing anything to reduce it--actually reinforces the source of the conflict.
Third, short of awarding sole custody to one parent, unequal custody does not necessarily reduce or mitigate the children's exposure to conflict. In fact, it typically increases it. Giving each parent equal 7-day stretches each creates one exchange per week. Giving one parent a 6-day stretch and the other just 1 day creates two exchanges per week, essentially doubling the opportunities for conflict to occur in the children's presence.
Especially when combining "primary physical custody" with "standard visitation", those in the divorce industry seem to believe that effectively removing one parent from a child's life will, lessen conflict. I've yet to see such proven. When one reviews the literature, you'll find consistency in that for healthy emotional development for children of divorce, kids have two needs:
1) A lessening of Parental conflict, and
2) A meaningful relationship with both parents post divorce.
Hence, it seems those in the industry are trying to address the first need at the expense of the second. Is trying to meet two needs really exceedingly difficult for policymakers to address? I have trouble believing such.
We once also had the theories that:
The earth was flat
The sun revolved around the earth
The earth was the center of the solar system,
etc.
Luckily, in the Astronomy, we've learned since then and changed our approach.
Have we done likewise in the area of Divorce? Or did we get custody law right 50 years ago?
Your husband's alienating behavior is all too common in overbearing divorced parents, predominantly mothers. I've been through the same with my daughters.
Keep fighting the good fight, and over the long term your son will realize how important you are in his life.
And, lets not overlook the profits made by the court from money paid by the support collection agencies for "hearing" child support cases. Since Dad is the intended target in this Communistic "TRANSFER OF WEALTH" scheme, Dad has to be separated from his children in order to separate him from his money. It's not in the best interests of the children to be separated from their father, but the profits to the courts and the mother over-ride their best interests. Der schwestershaft uber alles.
More recently, the Australian government had a study performed on shared parenting. Dr. Katz put forth a 158 page report which concluded similarly, that shared parenting lessened parental conflict.
"Shared Care Parenting Arrangements since the 2006 Family Law Reforms"
Report for:
Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department
Social Policy Research Centre
University of New South Wales
(Noting he always has the best handle on research, I'm sure Chris Sirhc already has this)
Where else in society does the public condone such blatant gender bias? Where is the psychological science to support what is being done in divorce cases? Who has proven capable of describing let alone determining what is in the best interests of the children of divorce?
Get the sunlight of public exposure on the issues.
Legislation as is pending in Wisconsin (2011 Assembly Bill 54, see
legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-54.pdf ) -- including a presumption that equal placement time is in the best interests of the children, and requiring a divorcing parent who wants greater placement time to rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence -- is a step in the right direction. See also W. Fabricius, "Listening to Children of Divorce: New Findings That Diverge From Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee", Family Relations at 385-96 (Vol. 52, October 2003) (study of young adults who had been children of divorce showing that they believe equal placement is best for children of divorce).
Divorce litigation is the worst possible time/context to be trying to figure out what is in the best interests of children.
Most professionals/evaluators in the divorce industry know that (what they are doing is completely speculative and ridiculously hopeless). They have virtually no idea what is in the best interests of the children in a divorce case involving two presumptively fit parents. That confusion is why they more often than not simply rely on stereotypical views of parenting roles and recommend "standard" placement schedules that favor the divorcing mother (regardless of the facts or the equal fitness of the divorcing father).
The emperor has no clothes.
But the current system is as profitable for the divorce industry as it is horrible for the children of the divorcing families. Having divorcing parents "fight" for their rights as parents is a gold mine for divorce lawyers. It is a nightmare for the affected children.
And the divorce industry, not the children, has the political clout. So it goes on -- without regard for the children.
You are quite articulate in putting forth honest questions which those in the industry should be willing to openly discuss / debate.
Kudos.
Divorcing parents need to love their kids more than they hate each other.
And logically, why would a family, who already will be suffering such financial losses when they split into two households, pay such huge amounts of money to lawyers for a "no win" situation? In my opinion, the money wasted on divorce proceedings should go into a college trust fund for the kids instead.
The adversarial system is often the culprit of sustained and even increased conflict, while we know that parties who choose (a highly-skilled) mediation have a chance to work through the anger and conflict in more productive ways.
It would be great to see then, in response to the finding that shared parenting is considered the best outcome, support for families where shared parenting is possible under better, less adversarial circumstances.
I'd also add that there are other factors at play. Given the current system, the party who believes they will get custody if they go to arbitration (i.e. court) actually has an incentive to create conflict. If that incentive was removed, would not divorce be less adversarial? Likely.
Second, I've met families who had conflict to the point they couldnt speak, but are practicing very successful shared parenting. 100% of their communication is through e-mail (which helps remove the emotion). As we live in an age where those who wear black robes can mandate "visitation" through Skype is appropriate, certainly allowing children shared parenting through e-mail should also be allowed.
To Guest211's point -- in my current divorce situation my divorcing spouse is trying to create conflict/a perception of conflict -- don't we want to disincentive conflict rather than allow one divorcing spouse to create it/benefit from it?
When the divorcing mom is trying to bully dad out of the lives of the children using divorce/divorce litigation with false allegations of abuse, restrictive gatekeeping behavior, pseudo-conflict), the last thing that the children need is for her to be rewarded.
If courts awarded equal placement as a default:
(a) there would be fewer divorce filings [see http://www.proactivechange.com/divorce/statistics/research-rates.htm - thanks, Chris Sirhc];
(b) children would get what they want, which is the equal placement/the opportunity to have a strong, loving relationship with each parent [see W. Fabricius, "Listening to Children of Divorce: New Findings That Diverge From Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee", Family Relations at 385-96 (Vol. 52, October 2003)];
(c) there would be less custody/placement litigation.
Legislation as is pending in Wisconsin (2011 Assembly Bill 54, see
legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-54.pdf ) -- including a presumption that equal placement time is in the best interests of the children, and requiring a divorcing parent who wants greater placement time to rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence -- is a step in the right direction.
I've watched lawyers state their beliefs on why there is such a discrepancy in the gender statistics for custodial parents stating they don't think there is anything wrong with the system, it is that fathers don't fight hard enough for thier kids.
That said, if we are to accept what the attorneys claim (if), if fathers "fight" harder, they run the strong risk of having the case classified as "high conflict" and, according to the author above, they will be marginalized.
Perhaps a few of the esteemed Esquire's would care to comment.
When mom wants to use the divorce process to push dad out of the picture, dad has two options:
1. Let it happen and be marginalized.
2. Assert the children's right to have equal/sufficient placement time with each parent and have the case viewed as "high conflict" (in which case the placement evaluator will say "this case is high conflict, so no equal placement").
The divorce lawyers profit from the way the system is now -- while talking about how "bad" the system is.
At best, the system has the financial resources of the divorcing family/children being transferred to the divorce lawyers (your children's college fund becomes your divorce lawyer's children's college fund).
At worst, divorce litigation extended by divorce lawyers (regardless of their intentions) causes stress and lasting injury to the relationships within the divorcing household.
If the system was set up so that the children of a divorce would have equal placement with each parent in the absence of any evidence of substantial evidence of parental unfitness and so that false accusations of unfitness were punished with fines and sanctions, children of divorce would be better off. (It may make divorce less attractive to so. So what? The focus is what is best for the children?)
If judges award custody to one parent when there is conflict, does that not incentivize the parent who thinks they will obtain custody to create conflict?
How do "professionals" define "high conflict?"
What percentage of the conflict is caused by such "professionals" (or is being served with your next round of legal papers a low conflict event?)
How does giving one parent control over another parents children, lessen conflict in the eyes of such professionals?
As the two most prominant needs for healthy emotional development for children of divorce include a meaningful relationship with both parents, how is "standard visitation" determined to be meaningful.
What measurements have said professionals used to determine if such practices are working?
Given the multitude of studies (I'm sure Chris Sirhc can post them all for you) which show the damage caused to children by the current system, which will die first, the ill fated "war on drugs" or the ill fated practices of "family" court?
Lori Anne Shaw, Divorce mediation outcome research: A meta-analysis, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Volume 27, Issue 4, pages 447–467, Summer 2010.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/crq.20006/abstract
"Unlike some of the variables previously discussed, research literature agrees on the effect of mediation on custody, child support, and visitation. Specifically, significantly more joint legal custody awards were made in mediation than in litigation (Emery, Matthews, and Wyer, 1991; Pearson and Thoennes, 1988); however, there were no group differences on the amount of child support to be paid (Emery, Matthews, and Wyer, 1991; Pearson and Thoennes, 1988) or on the number of days the children
were to spend with the nonresidential parent (Emery, Matthews, and Wyer, 1991).
I have felt for a long time that the best way to reduce conflict is to have a solid legal agreement to which everyone adheres. Flexibility can come later, when the tensions inevitably die down.
I knew there would be something to destroy this - too much child support at stake.
Men are deluding themselves if they think women wake up one day and decide they don't want to keep their family together they just want child support. Men don't want to face the fact their marriages have become very unpleasant due to infidelity, perhaps violence, whatever the conflict women are filing for divorce more than men to stop the suffering that's going on in the family, they're not thinking "wow, I'm ready to get rich on child support."
How is it fair that, for example, a friend of mine who makes much less money than his ex-wife, has the kids about 60% of the time because his ex travels a lot for business, yet somehow he ended up having to pay child support?
The largest study done to date about the cause for divorce says:
"And we know that the overwhelming reason that women are the ones to file for divorce is that they know to a virtual certainty that they won’t lose their kids. That’s what researchers Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen called the finding that “swamped all other variables” in their study of over 40,000 divorce cases in four states.
As Nathanson and Young write, “Women are much more willing to split up because - unlike men - they typically do not fear losing custody of the children. Instead, a divorce often enables them to gain control over the children.” (Emphasis in the original.)
Brinig’s findings were so powerful that she changed her mind about the best way to lower the divorce rate. She had thought that abandoning no-fault divorce was the answer, but, according to Nathanson and Young “she now favors shared parenting.
And of course, with the children comes child support - you know - that little thing you state never enters a woman's mind...