When considering the issue of custody, domestic court judges often regard two divorcing parents who are equally responsible as deserving of equal time with their kids. They rule, therefore, that the kids will spend 132 days a year with one parent and 133 days with the other but that custody during birthdays and holidays will alternate from year to year. That’s very nice and virtually guarantees that neither parent is going to be upset, that they are both going to feel as if the court treated them fairly. Indeed, that is consistent with what they tell me: it’s fair.This shows the parent-hating attitude of the family psychologist. The judge should only settle the dispute between the parents, and leave the parents the responsibility of the kids.
No, it’s not fair. These judges are ruling for the best interests of the parents but their best interests are not the issue. Concerning custody, the children’s best interests should rule.
But this psychologist has the leftist hivemind mentality of giving judges and psychologists control over deciding the BIOTCh.
Part if not most of the problem is that in divorces that involve children, the kids are often regarded as prizes to be “won.” ... The norm is warfare in which the kids are both suicide bombers and disputed territories.If equally shared parenting were the law, then there would be no such war and prizes in the vast majority of the cases. The war is created by the idea that judges and psychologists should decide the BIOTCh.
The proactive solution is the traditional arrangement where one parent has primary custody and the other has the kids every other weekend, a month or so during the summer, and on alternating birthdays and holidays.
Psychology professor Linda Nielsen replies that the research overwhelmingly favors share parenting anyway:
Last year, 110 international experts on child development, early childhood attachment and divorce reached a ground-breaking consensus -- shared parenting, including frequent overnighting with both parents for infants and toddlers, is in children’s best interests.To me, the best arguments for shared parenting are those of freedom, personal autonomy, and maintaining the family as a basic unit of civilization. If you value those things, it is obvious that shared parenting is better. The alternatives involve involve a vast invasion of civil liberties and social order.
Too many mental health professionals and professors offer recommendations about parenting plans that are based on their personal beliefs -- not on empirical data. Indeed many of these professionals have never read the available research. Just as some poorly informed doctors offer outdated or harmful advice about medical treatments, there are professionals who offer advice to judges and mental health practitioners that is not research-based.
More troubling still, many of these speakers and writers convincingly present their opinions as if they were actually reporting empirical data – a disguise that is not only disingenuous but potentially harmful to children whose lives are affected by judges’ and mental health practitioners’ decisions regarding custody issues. In short, too many well intentioned judges and practitioners have been misled into accepting advice that is not based on empirical evidence.
Shared parenting is not about parents’ rights. It is about making the best choices for children -- decisions that are firmly grounded in research -- not on the personal opinions of parents, seminar speakers, mental health professionals or judges.
Of course the research favors shared parenting, and the judges and psychologists who say otherwise are following their prejudices.
I got this from the National Parents Organization blog, and it does a fine job, but it is not enuf.
Apparently no one accepts an argument on either side unless it is phrased in terms of child interests. This is like the inmates running the asylum. The parents should be in charge of the kids. End of story.
Our society has witnessed a vast deprivation of our civil liberties for the sake of leftoid control of the kids. The people have put up with it, without much debate.
The gun lobby has done a very good job of convincing the public, and then the political authorities, that gun possession is a matter of right. Yes, there are studies showing that guns make people safer in their homes and elsewhere, but the bigger argument is that having gun rights is an essential part of our freedom.
Why can't the dads convince anyone that parental custody and authority is a right, and an essential part of our freedom? We should not need these stupid social science studies. No man is free as long as some judge or psychologist is controlling the upbringing of his kids.