It’s an amazing snowy Monday here at Researching Reform and whilst our sled is all ready for the lunch break toboggan run, we start the morning off with our usual question, in which we question what must be questioned.
And this week, we are questioning shared parenting. We’ve had some very engaging and interesting discussions on our website recently on the topic, but with a question mark (pardon the pun), still hanging over what the exact definition should be if enshrined into the Children Act 1989 or placed into a policy document, we thought we’d get a little mischievous and ask this question:
How would you define shared parenting?
Whether you feel it should mean an equal split of a child’s time between both parents, one home in which a child lives and the parents move in and out of as they rotate around that child, or simply a looser and more fluid sharing of time, don’t be shy, tell us what you think. The poster who gets the definition almost exactly should it go on to be implemented in law, will get a prize!
Possible answer: We think, if the government does go ahead with an attempted definition on shared parenting, that it will choose to place a sentence within the Children Act 1989 which reiterates the welfare of the child principle whilst at the same time adding a presumption on shared parenting, without defining specific terms and which will seek to caveat elements of risk through an evidence-based outlook. In short, everything the Act says already. Yawn.
THERE SHOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT for any parent to have contact with their children whether with the other parent or in care providing that the parent applying for contact had not committed a crime against the child or children.If the contact is supervised there should be no censorship or other restriction on the resulting conversations.
Thank you for your comment, Ian.
They will probably use the weasel words from the Australian law i.e. “that the primary consideration in the best interests of the child must be that the child has the right to a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation.”
But to force a child into a meaningful relationship with both parents is to force a child into a meaningless relationship with both. The inevitable result is that the child learns to mistrust the protective parent and to hate the abusive parent.
Time with each parent must be `substantial and significant and equal time must be a consideration”. i.e. another form of division of a child in the manner of Solomon. And “The child’s views will not be a consideration.”. (after all, what do children know about their wants and needs.).
Hello Natasha.
I’ve posted so many comments regarding this issue that I feel like I’m flogging a dead horse and that no’one is really listening nor do I feel that they care. Let me pose a question: why is this shared parenting issue on the agenda at all and why do certain MP’s feel that the present wording of the act merits another look? I can answer that quite easily, the fact is that fathers are not getting a fair crack of the whip when it comes to seeing their kids and feel powerless to do anything about it. It is THEY that have made it an issue and that’s a fact! If there was no problem on the issue we wouldn’t be discussing it at all, (I know I state the obvious). That said, something is terribly wrong here and I feel it deeply in my heart and in my bones that children are being harmed by the court system, in that fathers are being left out of their lives. I have said it time and time again that 97% of mothers get custody of children after divorce or seperation, THAT’S A FACT! Therefore lets stop ignoring this fact and realise that something, someone, is making that status quo a reality. This 97% custody fact has led to mothers having power, sorry to put it like that, but it has to be faced, otherwise why do we fathers feel left out? AND WE DO! It seems to me that tyrants, like Butler Sloss, want to keep it that way as well, having watched her on Ch4 recently ignoring us fathers as though we were just add on’s to a child life. It is so damn obvious that WE fathers need our rights to see our kids a lot more than we do, and to be always having to go cap in hand to the resident parent is demeaning and wrong. Yes we should have a presumption of 50/50, THIS DOES NOT MEAN EQUAL TIME with the children, it is a starting point only, but it certainly offers clarity and a starting postion for both parents, then we know where we stand, the details can be sorted out later as to the actual share of time according to the parents life style, ie, work, home location, etc. Shared residency should be left up to the parents to decide along with the kids too, but this does not negate a presumption in law that it needs to be in place RIGHT NOW, so that protection is there for fathers who otherwise have to keep going before the Butler Slosse’s of this world. I cant make it any clearer than that and I do not see what’s wrong with giving all parents an equal right to see ther kids, IF THEY WANT IT SO! As for me I don’t see my son at all, and it breaks my heart.
Reaching out into the wild. (written and composed by Paul Manning)
Reaching out into the wild, I’ll cast my destiny into the unknown, going to burn all my money and throw away my phone.
Wagging my thumb at the road hoping to hitch a free ride on a truck, wear my boots out mile after mile, trusting in fate to bring me luck.
Murder the past and bury the tomorrows just live for the here and now, no looking back to make a straight furrow just keeping my hand on the plough.
Let the Sun on my back and hanging on the wind while God makes me an angel above, try to forget the evil that’s done, because when you start to forgive you love.
There’s a world out there and time to watch the grass grow under a huge blue sky, rivers to cross, valleys to see, beauty that IS, no need to ask why?
I just hope that I can lose myself while I watch society do what it never gets done, I can sit dying on a mountain top while trying to forget my son.
Dedicated to my loving son, ‘E’. And to Christopher Johnson Mc’candless, (1968 – 1992)
Gone baby gone.
I know what it is to lose a child, to live with pain every second of the day, to be haunted by dusty toys that lay idle and unused. I know what it is to weep while hesitating in the doorway of my child’s room, to fearful to enter lest I remember. A room that echoes with distant laughter, with bed time stories and the warm ambiance of goodnight hugs. I know what it is to treasure his favourite shoes and to have his coat still hanging in the hall, wishing that one day he would come home to wear them. I know what it feels like to sit on a lonely park bench watching dads push their kids on the swings and trying not to cry. I know that when I awake in the morning my son won’t be there to ask me if we can wrestle like we used to on ‘dads big bed’. I know that skimming stones on the water is a pastime I can’t handle anymore because he isn’t there to count the skips. I know that I can’t bear to look at his old homework books with large pencil letters written on lines that hold me timeless. All I know is that a ghost sits at my table reading comic books and speaks of play station while eating pizza. I know what it is to have memories that I really want, but at the same time really want them to go away. All I have left is reaching out for the ‘now’ and trying to get by on it. I know what it’s like to look in the mirror while thinking… ‘gone baby gone’, but then to try and convince myself of this:… remember to keep your child in your arms and in your heart, whatever happens.
I’m so sorry, Paul.
If you look at most of the research out there it all says the same obvious things. A child at a young age needs its mother……sorry Dads this has nothing to do with you personally that is just how humans and mammals were created. A child needs nurturing at a very young age and the mother is the person who has been given those skills to fulfill that role. The father’s role comes later in a child’s life and at that time the mother sometimes has to step back. Of course a child needs both parents but not necessary both at the same time!
If a court decides to tamper with nature then there is always a backlash and unfortunately the child does not point a finger at the court but at his/her father and this is when it gets ugly. The father, in many cases, points a finger at the mother out of anger and frustration and in actually fact it has nothing to do with her, this is nature’s reaction to being messed with.
My father did the same out of love, but I never forgave him and if he could turn back time he would have done it nature’s way.
No one disputes the important role of a father in a child’s life and it is time that father’s understood that a young child only really wants his/her mother (as long as the mother is healthy and capable) for the first 8 years of their lives.
So in my humble opinion and from experience shared parenting does not work for the child, and it is after all the child’s interest the court is meant to be looking after.
Is it a genetic or legal profession predisposition to pretend to ignore what has already been stated and defined ?
If you want to define ‘shared parenting’ there are plenty of examples where the wording may change but the content and intention is identical.
To reiterate, look at how Belgium, Sweden and Denmark define it and then perhaps comment further.
Why try to redesign a wheel that has already been invented (unless you want to improve on it, and I suspect that is not the case here in the UK right now).
Joint shared residency is already contained within the 1989 Act and is only being prevented from being applied by dogma and a judiciary that have had directives (from the Dept of health 1991) not to enforce it. The question is, why ?
Dear Mr Whiston, I’m not sure whether your tone is directed at Researching Reform, but if you look at our ‘Possible answer’ (at the end of the post itself) you will see that we feel any new legislation is a waste of time, for the reason you mention first in your comment. Ignoring what’s there is bad enough; not seeing it in the first place, is arguably just as wanting
Combing thru all the possible replies on all the possible artciles published can be time consuming – and not just for me but all contributors. You mention the specifics of RR but I was addressing the generallity of the Butler-Sloss types in the legal profession and some editorials in legal journals that some/many of your readers may not be aware of.
Whether we agree on the need for primary legislation or not, the question still has not been answered (and by anyone, and not just RR) as to why a ban was effectively placed on shared residency in 1991. Any offers ?
Hi Robert, yes, we have touched on this in the past. The reason why shared parenting (not shared residence, as this is something slightly different and is not, in fact, banned), has been avoided in the past is due to the research and ensuing concerns of countries who implemented a presumption of shared parenting and found that it caused more harm than good.
The family courts are not just a place for entangled parents who are otherwise well-adjusted. It plays host to some very vulnerable mothers and fathers who need specialist attention and who, if wrongly presumed to be capable parents, can inflict a lot of harm. This really brings us back to the real issues – which are not legislative (we’ve said this often). The real issues are professional competence, training and conflicts of interest, to name but a few.
Until we have people inside the system who are highly skilled across the board, who understand children and how they fit into the family dynamic and who work to support families rather than polarise them, we can legislate until the cows come home, but nothing of any value will ever take shape.
Sorry, Mehrnaz Allawi but ‘all the research’ does not say that. If you read Bowlby and Anna Freud it is plain that very young children do not need a mother. Freud goes so far as to say that a ” Psychological parent” or third party will suffice.
There’s a lot of controversy surrounding Freud’s work, not least of all because she was working with a specific group of children and much of her findings have been called into question since her work was published (a quick google will highlight this). Of course, sufficient parenting is not the same as the kind of parenting that can make a child flourish and blossom.
I fully agree with Natasha on this, so it is curious why the legal profession persists in having as its main premise her work with orphaned and traumatised children. See my trilogy about her at http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/0013/
rwhiston…..Bowlby only saw his own mother for one hour a day after tea time!!! As for Anna Freud, as Natasha so rightly mentioned she is working with children with mental illnesses……….what relevance is that to shared parenting…..Does Bowlby actually know what it feels like to be nurtured by a mother? I don’t think so, as for Anna Freud this is her childhood “The youngest of Sigmund Freud’s six children, Anna was extraordinarily close to her father. Anna was not close to her mother and was said to have tense relationships with her five siblings. She attended a private school, but later said she learned little at school. The majority of her education was from the teachings of her father’s friends and associates.” Would you not say she was a little biased to say the least!!
Both bad examples I am afraid…………
The problem is not the law’ but how it’s applied. If judges are public servants who are independant of government they must be accountable to the public if we live in a democratic society’ if so, then lets see every judge who has not enforced a contact order be sacked & sued’ so justice can be seen to be done.
Natasha,
So much controversy has been generated by so little. I would like to see a greater emphasis on robust early intervention by the courts and a campaign to turn around the disgraceful culture of non- compliance with court orders in this country. I’d also like to see a fresh batch of specialist family court judges as abreast with research in child psychology as with the legislation.
I would like to see a lot of things that would make a difference but they will all cost money.
As regards shared parenting as a concept, I’m in favour of it where both parents are willing and capable but there is something missing from the debate; the factor which allows S.P. to be a successful default in other countries (which all, according to UNESCO rank highest in terms of child welfare and well-being)
That factor is shared parenting BEFORE separation or divorce, an egalitarian welfare system and an absence of gender stereotyping in the work place (male nursery nurses and staff are the norm in Denmark and Sweden) I may have missed it but I have seen little emphasis on this from the shared parenting campaigners.
If we are to have some kind of legislative sticking plaster, it will need to define, or attempt to define, “meaningful” so I suppose it will have to include a mixture of leisure and routine time. Overnight stays from a young age will have to be a part of it.
However, I don’t see how any great sea change coming about on foot of a nebulously drafted presumption and certainly not under this government.
Has anyone commented on the contradiction between this so called legislative presumption and the so called bedroom tax which will see poorer non RP’s penalised for having a room for their child to stay over in?
I think that shows where priorities lie with these Tory ingrates.
Hi David,
I agree with much of what you say. To my mind, culture, economics and professional competence are all at the heart of the system’s failings. For me to at least, the shared parenting lobby is not focusing on child welfare at its core, but rather on emotion-fuelled agendas which leave little room for intelligent debate.
Family torn apart in 15-minute court case by Judge James Orrell …
Lord Justice Thorpe said on Appeal “I am completely aghast at this case.There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing,because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.Once you have lost a child it is very difficult to get a child back.” The hearing above lasted only 15 minutes after a doctor “expressed the opinion” that bruising in the ear of one of the three children looked as though it was caused by pinching .The parents were not allowed to give any evidence!Their three children had all been forcibly removed until they were ordered to be returned by Lord Justice Thorpe on appeal.
That is what is wrong with the system !
Natasha,
In my view, the shared parenting lobby is, in essence, predicated on an equality, rather than a child welfare agenda. At times the two agendas coincide but I have yet to hear much protest from that lobby in favour of equality in childcare and in the workplace- it is a very selective equality sought, largely after the event.
Anyway, in reponse to your original post which I have been guilty of derailing somewhat, here is my suggested wording of said rebuttable presumption:
“That in considering whether to make, vary or discharge any order under section 8 of the Act, the court shall have regard to the principle that that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court shall consider the child’s welfare to be best served by as full and meaningful an involvement of both parents as is reasonable, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the character and personalities of the parents.”
I need to lie down now……
Yes, David, I agree. And I think the subtle distinction as to when this lobby kicks in (i.e. post separation and not before) is a very important indicator of why the agenda is not as pure as it should be.
That’s a very interesting definition for our shared parenting meditation, too, thank you. I hope you had a good rest
Shared Parenting in the USA – “In the last few years there have been hundreds of cases of abusive fathers involved in contested custody disputes killing their children.”
http://timesupblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/protecting-children-after-newtown.html