Need more Defusing Objections to Joint Custody

[Ron]

Hello,

I read through the "Defusing Objections To Joint Custody" page on SPARC, but still want to pose a few questions out there.  

My wife and I are in mediation for child custody. I am preparing a proposal to give to her that encourages joint custody/shared parenting, at 50% each. I am proposing that the arrangement is basically every 7 days, our 7-year old son will switch houses. She is so far resisting this for the following reasons:

1. She spent more time with him during the past 7 years so that is what he is used to and that's what he should continue.

2. At his age, he needs his mom more than dad, partly again, because that is what he is used to for the last several years.

3. 50% joint custody will be too much going back and forth for him. He needs one place he can call home and "hang his baseball cap." This is a BIG one to her.

What else can you offer to me to help me to respond to those specific concerns?

Thank you for any feedback you can offer.

[Kitty C.]

You didn't mention how old your son is, but as he gets older, the more he's going to need his father.

There are MANY statistics that prove that constant and continuous contact with both parents decreases the possibility of kids getting involved in drugs, violence, dropping out of school , promiscuity, etc.  Tell her she's gonna have to come up with PROOF to back up all her claims, because all she's telling you is how she FEELS, NOT what is best for your son.

There's even statistics that prove that kids who go back and forth between parents on the schedule you propose are MUCH more settled in their routine and are able to consider BOTH parents' residences HOME.  The emphasis here is that BOTH are homes to him, not one home and another place to 'visit'.  No child should ever have to 'visit' a decent parent.  Switching back and forth ONLY once a week is a helluva lot better than only having 48 hours 'visiting' one parent.  I've been watching it for over 7 years now.  As screwed up as our PBFH is, it takes a while for SS to get adjusted when he comes to our home, and just as he's comfortable with that, he has to go back.  IMO, EOW and one night a week messes with a kid a helluva lot more the a week by week schedule.

Also, the schedule you propose demands that the parents have good communication.  Sounds like the ex isn't willing to do that and she needs to explain why.

[joni]

Search the web for "shared custody", it's BIG in California.  The premise being alternating weeks at both homes actually is better for the child, it bonds the childs with both homes and give the child the sense of ownership and belonging in both homes.

Here is a GREAT article for you to attach AND quote in your motion.  Attach all the BS that you can.  Our first atty told us we couldn't attach anything unless we were having the expert testify at the motion.  Found out later that was BS.

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/ec1443.pdf

Here's some other tidbits I found.  We're considering filing a motion for the same.  Quote everything in your motion.  If you do a search in //www.google.com using the verbage I copied below, you'll get the web page I got this info.  Print those pages and save them for your reference.  Don't give away the boat and let HER know how easy it is to find this stuff on the internet.  She could find just as much damage the other way to suppor her.

1) Shared custody has the advantages of assuring the children continuing contact and involvement with both parents, and alleviating some of the burdens of parenting for each parent. There are, of course, disadvantages--children must be shuttled around, parental non- cooperation can have seriously devastating effects on children and maintaining two homes for the children can be expensive.

2) At 18 months of age, the child's preference for the primary caretaker disappears; the presence of either parent is satisfactory to the child; either parent is seen as capable of raising the child. Visits of only one or two hours duration with a parent are inadequate.

3) Fathers as Parents
* Visitation makes fathers peripheral in their children's lives. This realization results in fathers dropping out.
* Boys living with their mother perceive more hostility directed at them by their mother, because the mother is unconsciously reminded of the boy's father.
* Actively involved fathers participate in their child's homework, sports, school, and extra-curricular activities. This is only achievable by sharing physical custody.
* Children really like and prefer a shared physical custody arrangement. What children want is regular involvement of both parents in daily activities; they do not mind the inconvenience of changing residences to achieve this. Children are not satisfied with standard visitation schedules. Separations of 10 days or more are much too long.

4) From the Child's Standpoint, a Fixed Parenting Plan Is Essential
* Children need a balance of work and play with each parent for their development. Just spending work time with mothers and playtime with fathers is detrimental to the child's relationship with either parent.
* As children grow older, from infants and toddlers to school age, parenting schedules must evolve to recognize this change in circumstances.
* Children of 8 or 9 years of age can adapt to alternating physical custody between parents.
* Between the ages of 6 to 9 is a critical period for children's moral development and preparation for academic achievement.
* As children get older, there is an increase of autonomy and less relevance for a primary caretaker: the children are taking on more responsibility for themselves (washing, getting dressed, eating, etc.).
* Children do not feel that regular contact with each parent is disruptive. They do not want long periods between seeing each parent.

5) Preference for Joint Physical Custody
* Conflict between parents is of less concern to children if they can regularly be with each parent. As long as a child has a healthy relationship with each parent, high conflict between parents is not sufficient cause to automatically rule out joint physical custody.
* Children need and want more time with their father than is traditionally allowed. They want frequent and continuing contact with both parents.
* Even when joint physical custody is imposed upon mothers over their own objections, they eventually get to like it because of the freedom it affords them to do other things, and parental conflict subsides over time.
* Some mothers will object to anything; it makes sense to overrule them.
* Children themselves prefer a joint physical custody arrangement. Going back and forth between residences is generally not disruptive to children and does not increase instability.

6) The main argument against alternating custody is it creates too much instability for the child. Many parents today alternate on a week by week basis, which means over the duration of childhood the minor would switch homes more than 900 times. If this is instead done on a year by year or multi-year basis, it would be reduced to the range of 20 to 1 switches. Even children in married families typically move 3 times prior to reaching majority, so an alternating schedule can be crafted to meet every child and parent's needs. The stability argument is offered by those who have not fully considered this subject, or wish to maintain a high level of single-parent households.

7) Dr. Jennifer Flowerdew explained that for the children, the key to good shared residence was flexibility, supportive and co-operative parenting, and a sense of belonging in both parent's houses. "It is very important that children feel that both houses are 'home' and they can enjoy good and supportive relationships with both parents", she said.

8) "Weekend parenting" is not realistic and not representative of the participating in the daily life of the child.

9) Isolina Ricci sums it up nicely in her book, "Mom's House, Dad's House:" "When children are free to love both their parents without conflict of loyalty, to have access to them both without fear of losing either, they can get on with the totally absorbing business of growing up, on schedule."

10) Shared Parenting supports the following notions objectively
A. Both parents are fit.
B. Both parents desire to have an ongoing relationship with each child.
C. Both parents are able to carry out the childcare plan.
D. Any negotiated solution with meaningful input from the parents and, where applicable, the child(ren), is preferred to a court imposed solution.
E. It is usually in the child's best interest for each parent to have frequent, meaningful and continuing access to the child.
F. That the child needs reliability, predictability and consistency on the part of each parent.
G. That frequent, meaningful and continuing access to each parent offers the child a sense of significance--"I am a person, I am important and I count."
H. That the child need continuous access, direct experience and openness of communication with each parent and an absence of involvement in the mutual blaming of the parents.

[Ron]

Kitty,

Thank you for your reply.  That is good information.  Do you know where I can get those statistics that "that prove that kids who go back and forth between parents on the schedule you propose are MUCH more settled" - that's what I need to show her.

I am new to all this, and these terms - what is "PBFH" "SS" "IMO" and "EOW"?

Thanks again

Ron

[Ron]

Joni, wow!  I have been doing a lot of internet searching the last couple days for some good things to say, and what you just put down there is the best I have seen.  Very useful.  Thank you!

[Kitty C.]

Look up 'Acronyms' on this site and it will give you the entire list, LOL!  Also, I think some of the articles listed in this site talk about the statistics and studies that have been done to prove what a benefit joint custody can be to children.  

[joni]

....please let me know how it goes [email protected].

I hope you realize the reason she's fighting the joint custody is that she won't be getting child support.  It's about the money, it's always about the money.

We want to do the same thing so I'm sending you good thoughts and energy too!

[skye]

1. She spent more time with him during the past 7 years so that is what he is used to and that's what he should continue.

It has long been identified that a child has a need for stability in their daily life in order to promote their development. This has been adapted to assume that after divorce the child will have geographic stability with only have one house, one toothbrush and one primary parent. It is argued that a child cannot successfully cope with the regular and frequent experience of visiting their other parent.
This argument is plainly false. Children need predictability rather than geographic stability - after all, intact families expect their children to cope with child minders, play groups, baby sitters and staying overnight with grandparents and friends. What is so different about maintaining the stability of a continuing and loving relationship with both parents - something which clearly cannot be achieved in a few hours a month ? As long as children know what is going on, they can cope with a wide range of situations.

2. At his age, he needs his mom more than dad, partly again, because that is what he is used to for the last several years.


It is frequently claimed that children (especially young ones) need to be brought up by their mothers. This argument comes mainly from Bowlby's work on attachment theory which has now largely been discredited. Bowlby's work stemmed from the desire of governments to remove women from the workplace after the Second World War and make room for men returning from the battle field. The work, which is supported by few other studies, focused on children's relationships with their mothers, while father's roles were dismissed as "playing second fiddle" - merely providing economic and emotional support for the mother.

Schaffer is critical of Bowlby and asserts that "the notion that the biological mother, by virtue of being the biological mother, is uniquely capable of caring for her child is without foundation". He contends that mothering is a function which both sexes are equally capable of performing, and stresses that fathers' relative lack of involvement in child rearing is essentially a cultural rather than a biological phenomenon.


3. 50% joint custody will be too much going back and forth for him. He needs one place he can call home and "hang his baseball cap." This is a BIG one to her.

Shared Parenting Information Group (SPIG) UK
- promoting responsible shared parenting after separation and divorce -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shared Parenting - the arguments for
(see also Shared Parenting - overcoming the arguments)
The arguments for Shared Parenting which have been successfully used in UK courts are that:

It ensures continuation of family life for the child, with the advantage of nurture from both parents rather than just one.
It reassures the child that he has two parents, and although they live in separate places, he definitely has a home with both of them.
It dispels the notion that only one parent is "caring" and that the other is "errant" or "absent".
It ensures that one parent is not unfairly burdened with the responsibility of discipline whilst the other is relegated to (or marginalised as) the fun or contact parent.
It provides the opportunity for children and parents to develop meaningful and lasting relationships - in place of the artificiality and frustrations of contact .
It affirms the parents in their belief that they both have an ongoing role in their child's life.
It places both parents on an equal footing with schools, doctors and the world at large - who might otherwise only want to deal with the residential parent.
It confirms that no matter what, each parent wants to, and is able to, provide a home for their child.
It reassures the child that in the event of one parent dying he still has a home to go to.
Without such an order, if one parent dies, the child would not automatically go to live with the other parent, but would be left with whoever they were living with at the time or handed over to a guardian - a poor substitute for a natural parent.

[Ron]

Thank you for the reply and information!