In our You’re Still Dad support group parents often spoke about the issue re: joint custody vs. sole custody. Our experience after almost twenty years working with newly separating parents suggests that the risk to the non-sole custody parent’s relationship with their child is significantly endangered in a sole custody arrangement.

Occasionally sole custody may be the ‘inevitable’ outcome given certain parenting histories; but it should be the exception whenever possible.

There are approaches known as parallel parenting that provide protection for either parent from possible high conflict. These plans attempt to identify parenting situations (hopefully) that could lead to conflict.  (See Resources on Parallel Parenting)

Preventive measures may be necessary until the parents find a calmer place.  In the recommended resource for before and during separation, there is a document detailing situations that may need a focused remedy.

Separated parents often look back after a few years separated and realize that they were driven by anger and revenge, based on their own vulnerability.

Advocates for sole custody desire a parenting plan agreement that clearly defines the rights and responsibilities of each parent and thus each parent would be held accountable for what they signed i.e. the parenting plan. The parents will not argue because decision-making is in one parent’s hands. A parallel parenting agreement can be similar, except for the decision-making protocol.

The above sounds fine in theory; however, the reality on the ground is often vastly different.

On sole custody

Our experience with sole custody suggests that the parent with sole custody believe that they are the parent in control given their power to make parenting decisions for all matters not set out in the parenting plan. The sole custody parent may find certain parenting obligations to be ‘inconvenient ‘and often desire more flexibility as life transitions in many ways e.g. a new partner.

Sole custody is often viewed as a blank check and the other parent may be left facing a decision of returning to court to enforce an agreement from an already weakened parent/child relationship.

While it is often the father and the father-child relationship that is endangered, it is the core position of the our work that the mother’s relationship is also at risk over time, as noted from a reading of two attached case resources. It is also a core contention that parents want the best for their children over the long term and are more than capable of loving their child more than they are angry with their former, intimate partner.

Joint/Shared custody provides a backstop to erratic, punitive behavior. It makes it more difficult for a parent to break the parenting plan terms with near impunity. Shared custody arrangements that are agreed to set a foundation willingly/voluntarily for the long-term parenting relationship.

 A recommended document, Child Custody, Access, and Parental Responsibility (Executive Summary) summarizes the research on the joint custody vs. sole custody debate and positive outcomes vs. negative outcomes for families.

The author, Edward Kruk U. of B.C. has been an effective advocate for joint custody based on the findings of research that he provides. At the core, his interpretation of the research matches up with any parent’s common sense; namely, that the positive involvement, support and love of each parent and extended family offers every child the best opportunity to navigate life’s challenges following a family breakdown.

The following is a blend of Dr. Kruk’s research compilation, Alberta’s Parenting After Separation and the decade of work by Kids n Dad Shared Support. It is offered as support for separating parents who want the best outcomes for their children.

Highlights

1. Currently, advocates often frame parenting after a separation as a conflict over mother’s rights vs. father’s rights and the core support for each side are feminists and father’s groups. The rhetoric is often harsh and self-serving and leads us down a path nowhere near meeting the needs of their child (ren). Equally disturbing, this approach can lead professionals working with families down a path about choosing one parent over the other parent.

This is a choice that was never considered when just days before separating the parents were cooperating, parenting partners and each child had two loving parents in their life. The week or even the day before deciding to separate each parent likely had no problem with leaving the child (ren) in the care of the child’s other parent.

• ‘Research is clear that children fare best in their post separation life when they maintain meaningful, routine parental relationships with both of their parents beyond the constraints of a “visiting” or  “access” relationship…’

The research also finds that such relationships a) protect children from negative parental conflict; b) provide stable financial support;

• What is shared or joint custody parenting time?

The mere fact that this is a question under debate seems somewhat bizarre. After all the children are the parents’ children, not the Court’s property to pontificate over. The state should have some influence on ensuring the parents take their responsibility in a serious way and understand the implications for their children. The child’s view of the world should be understood and considered. Understanding the child’s concerns/wishes provide a basis for the parents’ decision-making.

The above is stated within the framework that is advocated by others including Dr. Kruk. His research endorses a legal shared responsibility presumption of at least 40% time with each parent. This would only be rebuttable/altered in the case of proven child abuse or domestic violence. Child Abuse and domestic violence would be considered separately.

 It is important to note that 40-45% of first-time abuse occurs after a separation in families with no previous history of such abuse. This suggests that the current path for separating fails separating families. Intimate partner abuse and child abuse in the post –separated family is committed at similar rates by both parents.

               ‘Recent research finds that inter-parental conflict decreases within shared parenting.’

                Each parent has a stake in modelling civilized, cooperative relationship with the other parent.

               The 40% parenting time presumption is a set as a minimum parenting time for each parent.

• How do children do in joint custody arrangements?” …children in joint custody arrangements fare significantly better on all adjustment measures than children who live in sole custody arrangements.” (Bauserman 2002) Study after study supports this finding and research informs us that a missing or minimal fathering role leads to significantly worse adjustment measures for children from separated families.

N.B. These are findings from research done from substantial populations. There are many children from separated, sole parent families that do journey through childhood/adolescence successfully.

Inter-parental cooperation increases over time in shared parenting arrangements! In our work with over 600 clients the ‘great fear’ is the loss of their involvement as a parent with their child. Every parent, moms, and dads have this same fear. For dads it is often more real, more in their face all the time. If the separated parents manage to navigate their way through the anger and risks that often follow, they often settle into a more comfortable relationship.

The ‘great fear’ is reduced and the partner that we did not trust earlier can be trusted now. Why? Because they want the best for their child. Your parenting goals are now in sync.

The 40% parenting presumption offers parental respect for the other parent and their importance and their extended family’ importance in the child’s live.

 Consider for a moment what message the current process delivers to one parent. Their struggle is to get one more overnight, one more long weekend, a birthday with their child on their actual birthday, a sense that they matter as a respected parent, etc.;

• Changing workplace participation has resulted in shared parenting roles in the intact family. Most separated parents believe in a form of ‘joint custody’. This demonstrates a general recognition that the parents need each other to effectively parent their children to meet the responsibilities of career and parenthood.

There is unfortunately a caveat to the ‘joint custody’ application to parenting plans. The current reality in Canada is that contested cases predominantly end with a form of sole custody. In addition, ‘joint custody’ on the ground reality is that one parent, usually the mother, often end with that parent becoming a de factor sole custody overtime.

Any combination of factors may contribute to this outcome, but at its core is the fact that the parent with the dominant parenting time  feels entitled to exercise more control and the ‘other parent with less time (3-4 overnights in a 14 day cycle) feels less connected and less important in their child’s life. The ‘other’ parent must often work extremely hard to meet their parenting role as their life moves on to a new family (blended family) or what we call a complicated family. For the ‘other’ parent’ and their child ‘fitting’ into the minority access parent’s home is complex and difficult.

Joint custody as practiced in Canada disappointingly often becomes another form of sole custody over time. The unequal/ reduced parenting time impacts each parent and states to the child and others in the family circle that the ‘other’ parent is somehow lesser and/or at fault for what has happened.  The best option of shared parenting has often been negated with the first stroke of a parenting agreement that sets out a disparity in parenting time.

Therefore, the minimum of 40% parenting time is considered to be the ‘best’ foundation for ensuring two parents and two extended family’s participation in each child’s daily life.

Comments

This web site is designed to promote best practices for separated families by setting out the rights and responsibilities of parents. Our purpose is not to recommend an approach that is likely to fail parents, children and grandchildren.

The presumption of 40% parenting time for each parent with their child and for the child with each parent provides the best framework to achieve effective, shared parenting and meet the needs and desires of most children when their parents have decided to separate.

The parents would negotiate the remaining parenting time based on what makes sense for the changing family. The advantage of the 40% presumption is the ‘trust’ factor that emerges. A parent is more likely to be ‘flexible’ at meeting the child’s and other parent’s ever-changing schedules.

Parenting plans can basically be what the parents decide. Tools in the Resource Hub lay out several considerations. The resources include the research supporting our advocacy for the 40% minimum. Listen to the voices provided by children, parents and grandparents who describe their lifelong loss; their voices capture their gratefulness at their parents’ choice of civility and cooperation.

A dad in describing his journey to a parenting plan that was always less than desired or fair found satisfaction that he and his children had reached a place where they now ‘owned’ their relationship. What he could not understand is why the journey took such a toll to reach that place. Owning the relationship with your children should be a given for each parent and extended family. The role of any support service must be to support families in that doable quest.