Category: Custody
Posted by Larry Herren on Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:13 PMKids need both parents
I make no apologies for being a shared parenting advocate. As a family therapist, I've understood for years that kids need both parents. But in 2003, the clinical benefits that are achieved for children in shared parenting and the negative outcomes that often result when a parent is under involved became even more meaningful to me when my son was born.
Yet with all the research and understanding, a minute few still try and argue that the need for shared parenting somehow changes in a divorce or never married dynamic. Unfounded rationalizations include "schlepping from one house to the other is burdensome for kids and they'll do better if they have one primary home." Fact is, most family therapists and research concludes that as long as the environment is safe, predictable and consistent, children do fine in multiple environments. However, they do poorly when the frequency of contact with their parent is restricted to a visitor status and the voids then created tend to be acted out in highly destructive ways.
As a valued family clinician once told me early on in my case, a child's need for a healthy attachment and loving relationship with both parents trumps any need for one residence, neighborhood, etc. It takes real time to develop and maintain that sort of relationship. I've seen this truth illustrated in my child's life. He spends equal time between two homes that are 30 miles apart but he's thriving in every way. Not surprising, children, like adults, define relationships by the frequency of contact and quality of time they spend with someone so regardless of a marital status, it requires a quantity of time to authenticate a parental role. If you're being challenged in your legal ability to achieve something to that end, retain an experienced family law attorney who understands what the Michigan Parenting Time Guideline states:
Michigan statutes recognize that when parents separate or divorce, their children's best interests are served by continuation of the parent/child relationship. So strong is this recognition that the law establishes a presumption that it is in the best interests of a children to have strong relationships with both parents. Therefore, parenting time should be of a frequency, duration and type reasonably calculated to promote a strong relationship between the children and parent. The children have a right to parenting time unless the court determines on the record by clear and convincing evidence that parenting time would endanger the children's physical, mental or emotional health [MCL 722.27a].
Calculating parenting time in a frequency, duration and type that promotes strong relationships between children and their parents. Sounds like a novel idea, certainly nothing that requires sophisticated clinical training or legal brilliance, yet this remains the single most controversial aspect of divorce. One reason why is that some parents continue fighting by trying to use children as pawns to control and hurt the other parent.
Make no mistake about it, taking a willing parent out of the mix of parenting will ultimately hurt and scar your children.
Comments
| Jump to bottom |
Re: Kids need both parents
Jdlech-Armada,
I just read your posting in response to Larry Herren's entry ad have a few thoughts.
I, frankly, am not sure if you are a legitimate responder or are posing as one. Regardless, there are a few things I would like to say to you. First, If you experience the kind of internal struggle that you imply that you deal with I would strongly suggest that you seek competent therapeutic services as soon as possible and stay in therapy to fully resolve any unresolved issues you have given your own upbringing. It would first and foremost be in your best interest and by that it would be in the best interest of your children. Secondly, the premise that the only qualified parent is an adult who experienced an "optimal" upbringing would disqualify most of us. Some of the best parents I have encountered both personally and professionally (I have been a child and family therapist for 25 yrs.) have had childhoods that would make what you describe seem like a walk in the park. Don't underestimate yourself or your children, children are very resilient. Thirdly, your situation, at least as you describe, is a shinning example of just how a shared parenting perspective can indeed work. You described flexibility in access to your children between you and your ex and the children have adapted well. Any judge worth his or her salt would begin from a shared/equal parenting perspective unless and until there is clear and convincing evidence that to have such an arrangement would be detrimental to the children. In your situation, again as you have described, it appears to be working just fine. Keep up the good work you are doing with your children and the cycle of violence CAN stop through you.
Re: Kids need both parents
Larry, I tend to agree with your thoughts when it involves parents equally capable of parenting. However, there's an all too common situation where your solution would be disastrous. I write from personal experience.
When one parent is abusive or neglectful, equal time begs for disaster. My wife and I are separated, but not divorced. We have an arrangement that changes as our needs change. Sometimes she has the children more, and sometimes I do - depending upon our own needs. We negotiate the arrangements every few months and as things come up. We accommodate each other as best we can. This kind of dynamic custody, (and dynamic child support), relieves a lot of stress for both of us and our children take it all in stride. They're real champs who know how to roll with the punches life throws at them. It helps when we both live within a couple of miles of each other (for their sake).
But I was not raised that way. My own father was a violent alcoholic who regularly provided 'object lessons' in fear to keep us kids in line. He used to tell me that 'pain and fear are the only ways to raise a child'. We lived in an ultra conservative community where everyone minded their own business - preferring to close the door even when a battered child comes knocking (literally). In such situations, the judge would have nothing but a 'he said, she said' situation and would have to provide 'equal time'. I know such communities still exist, and I know such parents still exist. Sanilac county, where I was raised, being one of those communities. There, your ideas would be disaster for any child.
I do my best not to be my fathers son with my own children. But even then, a thoughtless word or a moment of indiscretion is all it takes to scar a child for life. I hold no illusions that the cycle of violence will end with me. Perhaps not even with my own children or their children. I am not like many parents; I have no memories of how parenting should be done; no template or model given by my parents. I only know how NOT to do it, and I must accept my natural tendency to do it that way. I must assume my every moment with my children carries the potential to harm them for life and I must act accordingly. My every action, my every word must be guarded and carefully considered. I love them dearly, but this is no guarantee of protection.
Others sometimes praise my parenting, but I know better. Behind the careful art of parenting is a violent brute that should never have had children. This is what it is like when a survivor becomes a parent. It takes a great effort just to be modestly competent as a parent. And it only takes an unguarded moment... Judging by the effort I make, I suspect that my efforts make me the exception. I suspect that not many make such effort; and among those who do, not enough are as successful.
Equal time with a bad parent is a disaster. For such system to work, a judge must be empowered and motivated to find out and act accordingly. You cannot just blindly assume that 'the system' for finding abusive or neglectful parents works everywhere and at all times. If it did, there would be far fewer of us survivors out there perpetuating abuse from generation to generation.
Make no mistake about it; I don't support a presumption of shared parenting when a real potential for violence is present. I maintain zero tolerance for abuse and whole heartily support judges having discretion to determine the framework of parenting time when legitimate threats of abuse exists.
In fact, if you read the Michigan Parenting Time Guidelines that were included in the post, you'll notice that this very issue is covered; "children have a right to parenting time unless the court determines on the record by clear and convincing evidence that parenting time would endanger the children's physical, mental or emotional health [MCL 722.27a]."
I'm truly sorry for what you endured in your childhood. I absolutely understand the deep and lasting scares that physical and verbal abuse causes. But the real and far to often perpetrated abuse in divorce is one, or the other, parent alleging abuse or neglect where there is none all in an effort to win a primary parental role, and to the loser goes a visitors status. Children are the real losers in that sort of process and it's this winner takes all process that has to change if we're ever going to provide children of divorce what they truly need in parenting.
Good luck to you and thanks for your comments. I hope you'll press on and continue being something better as a parent than the initial blue print you experienced. As bad or good as any of our histories are, we should all try to provide something better for our children but to what ever extent some tools are needed to do that, I hope you'll also consider using resources like counseling. Larry
Shared parenting
Larry, you make some great, valid points. Kids DO need both parents, and it is very important that the frequency and duration of time with each parent be looked at more closely by the courts. Kids are resillient, loving, tough little things, and love can simply "Move mountains". The courts empower to a degree in a high conflict divorce or custody case "control". Its easier for the courts to give the cookie cutter parenting time to the non custodial parent. It is a proven fact that kids need more than just a few hours a week with the non custodial parent, which typically tends to be the father in most custody cases. This type of treatment is not what is best for any boy or girl, and the NC parent feels more like a "visitor" than anything else to their own children. I also see in high conflict custody matters (which I can personally attest to) parental alienation because the other parent knows how to work the system to their advantage, exploiting all of the flaws in the judicial system. Parents who use their kids as Pawns in a Chess Game with the other parent are only making it harder on the child in common, because they yearn and desire to be with the other parent. Its unfortunate that we live in a society where we have seen so many changes in law with Women's Right to Vote, Civil Rights Movement,but yet parents of either gender can't spend the the time they need with their children because of the limitations of family courts. The Shared Parenting time bill has been kicked around for years, and needs to be taken seriously. If we can't get legislators to take it seriosuly because it is easier for the state to dictate parenting, and make the other parent pay, then we will see no changes in this. It shouldnt have to be such an uphill battle especially for good fathers to get increased parenting time with their kids, and have to spend absorbent amounts of money in the process doing so.
Thanks for sharing your comments; your points are excellent and absolutely accurate.
Larry
Kids Need Both Parents
Larry,
As usual, you have made an important argument for the development co-parenting as it is truly in the best interest of children. Others who have commented have added important points to this conversation. The issue I have is with the existing legislation. While it calls a frequency of time between parents that will foster an ongoing relationship, it simply falls short too many times. The language to vague as to allow for unwarranted litigation to thwart co-parenting efforts. Of this I know you are painfully aware of, as are the numerous other parents who find themselves having to struggle in the court system to stay involved in their children's lives. The just and right thing to do is to modify the legislation so that it requires judges to begin with the presumption of "Equal Parenting Time". Only when there is clear and convincing evidence that this would be contrary to the best interests of the child would equal time between parents be modified. Until such change occurs you can expect that the one group whose best interests are being met in a consistent basis are the family law attorneys.
No question we need legislation in this matter but interestingly, while shared parenting bills are getting increased attention, many in legislation throw it back on the Court, rationalizing that there's already laws on the books calling for shared parenting to be a presumption but the courts disrespect that fact. I've herd from more than one judge, however, that their role is one of discretion in following existing law and if people want laws changed, they need to take it up with the legislation. My opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There is, for example, pretty significant language in the law that speaks to shared parenting being in the best interest of children but it remains a judge's discretion in when and how to apply it. Trends certainly suggest a growing number on the Bench have become enlightened and start from a presumption that kids need the healthy and active involvement of both parents. But there remains those who when parents can't agree, will fall back to a gender bias protocol that often disenfranchises an otherwise good and willing parent which, as we understand, is highly detrimental to children.
But as you've pointed out, the bottom line is we need a system that serves and encourages what we clearly understand to be the in best interest of children. We need to some how ensure that there is accountability in discretion and parents, and kids, are afforded a process that allows good and willing parents equal access and participation in parenting. Further, that to achieve such an end doesn't require long drawn out and expensive litigation. Rest assured, when that becomes the system, we'll see a lot less fighting.
As always, thanks for your insightful comments, they're sincerely valued.
Larry
Kids need both parents
Larry,
In my personal case your reference to "The children have a right to parenting time unless the court determines on the record by clear and convincing evidence that parenting time would endanger the children's physical, mental or emotional health [MCL 722.27a]" is most relevant.
There were physical, mental and emotional health issues with my ex-wife that were so overwhelming that I was awarded full physical and legal custody of my children. Since my divorce I made ongoing concerted attempts to try to keep their mother in my son's lives, during the last year she barely recognizes their existance.
I agree totally with the fact that kids need both parents, and that there are many issues with our court system. In my case MCL 722.27a worked the way it was intended. For that I am grateful.
I continue to hope and pray that my children's mother will become healthy enough to once again be part of their lives and understand how much they miss sharing life with her.
Living with the reality of an emotionally ill or addicted parent is a difficult challenge in any family dynamic, intact or divorced. You're doing a phenomenal job loving your son's through this and teaching them how to love their mom while still keeping appropriate boundaries to not take on those aspects of her struggles that remain hers to resolve and prayerfully, she will resolve them.
I've herd it said, and I believe it, that love is an action word. Press on my friend, you are a bench mark in what a dads love for his children, and a man of integrity, truly looks like.
Larry
KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS
Larry, I totally agree with your statement, "Kids need both parents ! " The stateement can be backed up by numerous studies, Steve Nock, University of Virginia ,2008( Positive Economic effects of both parent namely father involvement), Philip Cowan, University of California,2009 ( reduction of parental stress, relationship quality, and reduction of children's problem behavior), Katherine Mitchell, Louisiana State University,2009 ( involvement improves well being ), and Lawrence Berger, University of Wisconsin-Madison,2008 ( Benefits to children in terms of child support compliance and financial contributions.
It is sad that many parents continue to relitigate cases that have been decided. Judges are empowered to protect children, they have the authority to protect them from parents that induce mental abuse continually by relitigating. At a minimum the moving party should cover all expenses including court costs and attorney fees for all the parties continuing to use the court as a battlefield for their own agenda. It is wise to look seriously at what one is trying to accomplish by relitigating. If one is continuing to fight and file motions, it may be wise to seek the help of a mental health professional for a complete mental health examination of competence to file motions ( One should rule out Mood disorders, Personality disorders, thought disorders and co-morbidities ). In California, when a party continues to relitigate full custody is given to the party that promotes the MOST time with the other parent. Another way of saying the same thing is that the party who files the most motions, interfering with the other parent and their time. By default and the order of the Judge, full custody goes to the parent who has to defend themselves from frivolous motions. In conclusion, a child needs both parents unless one parent is using the child as a weapon to sabotage that other parents relationship. If that is the case, the court should step in and order full custody to the parent that continues to be victimized by frivolous motions and assess court costs, attorney fees and child support obligations to the moving party who continues the fight !
WOW, thank you for sharing these studies. I'm familiar with a couple of them and as you've pointed out, they come to the same conclusion as the overwhelming majority of other shared parenting research; regardless of a marital status, children do better in every measurable way when both their parents stay actively involved in parenting them.
As you've also noted, they're any number of factors that drive continuous litigation between parents but it's telling when the effort is to modify one or the others parenting time, or their ability to participate in real elements of parenting. You mentioned personality disorders which is a real and difficult psychiatric condition. A person with "Borderline Personality," for example, has tendencies to feel persecuted and will usually have difficulty sharing those they want or feel a need to be connected to. One of a few reasons why include abandonment issues that trigger their need for a perceived sense of control and power. Obviously, these are not well suited qualities for a fair and mutual relationship and makes co parenting extra challenging. I believe you're on target, though, calling for the courts to use mental health professionals in these cases. Therapists who have clinical training in this specialty can then provide the court a better picture of what is really going on and how to respond so that the best interest of children can truly be served. Clearly, continuously trying to otherwise compete for a singular role of importance, rather than respecting a child's need for their parents to engage in mutually respectful and dual roles of parenting is not serving any ones best interest.
Thanks again for your comments, look forward to hearing from you again.
Larry
Kids need both parents
Your post is an interesting and powerful argument that shared parenting orders should be the rule, rather than the exception. In most custody cases, both parents are willing and able to participate in shared parenting. It's a tragedy that so many parents, dads or moms, spend so much money and time fighting over their roles when their children are in need of both of them equally. It's also sad that the thousands of dollars they're spending on attorneys and court fees is money that could be used for other things like vacations with their kids, or sports and other extra calicular activities and obviously, with the rising costs of education it's money that could be put away for college.
Absolutely! Shared parenting, by definition in the Michigan Parenting Time Guidelines and multitudes of research that conclude what common sense dictates, is presumed to be in the best interest of children yet it remains the exception rather than the rule in a majority of custody and parenting time orders. Trends are slowly, but absolutely, changing but when parents disagree, the system remains unnecessarily expensive and ripe for manipulation and that has to change.
Thanks for your comments,
Larry
Kids Need Both Parents
No doubt about it, Larry, I completely agree. I also think a common reason why divorced or never married parents try to restrict the involvement of the other is due to painful feelings that they don't want to have to deal with. As you are well aware, it can be very hard for others to forage a co-parenting relationship when feelings are hurt and tempers are high. I think sometimes parents think if they can just get rid of that other parent they could all move on with their lives, and tend to try to avoid working through the difficult issues rather than facing them for the sake of their child's happines. Also, I think sometimes parents convince themselves that the conflict they are having with the other parent is so high that it affects the child adversely, and believe that it would be best to only have one parent or the other. Or, one parent can't stand the other parent and can't separate their own feelings enough to see that the parent/child have a natural bond that should not be severed. Basically, I think it's all about parent's not being able to rise above their own feelings and issues in order to do the ultimate loving thing for their child, which is providing and supporting a strong relationship with both parents. I know in some cases it's easier said than done, but I think people should put their kids first and the rest will follow.
As usual, Tammy hits the nail on the head in illustrating some of the core reasons that drive a parent's ambivalence to establishing healthy and effective co parenting.
No question that good parenting involves sacrifices which include resolving hurt and angry feelings so that appropriate perspectives in the need children have for complete and whole relationships with both parents can be kept. Like the "Smile Program" says; the greatest gift you can give your child is permission to love their other parent but that requires putting your children first which sadly, remains an ongoing struggle for some. Reasons why include any number of axis 2 personality disorders but we'll save that for another blog.
Larry| Jump to top |
