SHARED PARENTING: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

When it comes to custody, I have largely addressed my concerns towards the issue of corrupt GALs and AMCs who are defrauding unsuspecting parents of thousands and thousands of dollars.  I haven't spent as much time with the question of shared custody. 

 

However, many of the folks who established the current task force addressing issues such as GALs and AMCs and the importance of shared custody (and that is actually not me, by the way!)  are much more focused on the importance of implementing shared custody in Connecticut's Courts. 

 

My problem with this idea has been that I am totally confused by what shared custody means!

 

In essence, my response has been that the State of Connecticut already has the presumption of joint custody in place, so what more do you want.  What joint custody means is that both parties in divorce have equal decision making authority in regard to religious, medical, and educational matters. 

 

However, joint custody does not address the question of who is the parent who obtains primary custody of the children, or in other words, who has residential custody of the children.

 

Now in my case, I ended up having the residential custody of the children and my ex lives out of State.  So it was pretty clear that once I obtained the residential custody of the children, my ex would have time with the kids every other weekend, and as it turned out in our case, he was given two evenings a week for dinner from 5:30p.m. to 8:30p.m., which he never followed through on.  Of course, given how far away he is, that is actually understandable so I'm not complaining,I'm just informing!  Plus, my ex was allowed a little over a full month over the summer. 

 

Even though I can explain the limited time my ex obtained by citing the fact that he is Out of State, there are many non residential parents who have this very same schedule even though they may just live a single town away from their kids.  My impression is that family court is kind of stuck on the schedule of every other weekend and one night during the week for dinner for the non residential parent, although I am hearing that many also get Sunday night and have the opportunity to take their kids to school on Monday morning.

 

This adds up to maybe 4 to 6 overnights in a 30 to 31 day month for the non residential parent. 

 

When you put it that way, to me, that doesn't seem like a whole lot of time!

 

If the divorce has been particularly ugly, to the offended party that amount of time must seem to be ten times more than the person deserves.  However, in the ordinary situation where you don't have high degrees of tension, I must say 4 to 6 overnights doesn't seem like much time for a child to develop a significant relationship with a parent.  In fact, I'd say it is pretty crummy. 

 

That's where, I am suspecting, the whole concept of Shared Parenting comes into play. Non-residential parents are sick and tired of essentially being excluded from a significant role in their children's lives and Shared Parenting seems like a good solution to the problem. 

 

 

To be honest, when folks first approached me with the concept of Shared Parenting I had no idea what it was, and I still don't feel as though I have a good grasp of it.  However, in order to write this blog I quickly looked up a definition and came up with one on the blog "A Dad's Divorce"  and found the following link:

 

http://www.dadsdivorce.com/articles/what-is-the-definition-of-shared-custody.html

 

From what I gather after reading this article, Shared Parenting basically consists of a situation where the parties have a 50/50 share of the overnights.  What advocates in support of Shared Parenting would like to see is the presumption of joint custody, which is currently in place, replaced by the presumption of a 50/50 share of the overnights between the two parents.  

 

If I have not understood this concept properly, someone who is an expert in Shared Parenting, please interject a clarification so I can understand the term more accurately!

 

My immediate reaction to this kind of arrangement is that it would make much more sense in terms of allowing both parents liberal access to the children, and also allowing the parties who were previously known as the non-custodial parents to continue on with their close relationship with their children subsequent to the divorce. 

 

If there is one aspect of divorce that I believe is particularly painful, it is the loss of the intimacy, or day to day contact, with your children that the non-custodial parent endures.  Then they are told to fork over the money and it can appear to them that the custodial parent, as well as society as a whole, only considers them valuable for the money they provide and not for the non monetary items such as mentoring, emotional connection, and shared experiences, etc..  

 

If the parties live reasonably close by, why not proceed with a Shared Custody arrangement? 

 

One concern I'd have would be that kids with Shared Parenting situations would end up feeling like tennis balls bouncing from one house to the other and back again and not settling in anywhere. 

 

Second, for children with mental health issues such as anxiety, and children with autism, etc. such frequent changes of homes could be disruptive and end up undercutting their ability to function. 

 

It's not just the homes, either, it is also the community that the children spend time in--with Shared Custody they'd have two separate sets of families, churches, rec. centers, etc. 

 

I could see that being a problem, but I could also see that as being an opportunity, but only for a particular kind of child, and that would require a custody study to see what kind of children do you have. 

 

Oh no! 

 

Now we are back to the custody study that we were trying to avoid by establishing the presumption of Shared Parenting!  Because I am almost certain that the State Legislature will never approach any change in CT Statutes which doesn't include some kind of loopholes for that minority of parents whose circumstances don't match the norm. 

 

I also think that in cases of proven abuse of either of the parties, or in cases where there is ongoing high conflict, Shared Parenting would be difficult because it would increase contact between the parties and almost certainly result in more frequent opportunities for one of the parties to browbeat and harass the other. 

 

Of course, much of the solution for that problem is the establishment of safer, more scrutinized transfer locations so that one party does not use the transfer of the children as an opportunity to continue the abuse. 

 

Furthermore, family court would have to address much more effectively this business of one party taking advantage of the other by showing up late.  There is only so long that you can keep the kids in the car watching DVDs waiting for the other person to show. 

 

I also think that the inevitable result of Shared Parenting is increased shared decision making which also requires that the parties have the ability to communicate with each other effectively.  For many parents whose relationship remains hostile, this will be a particular challenge. 

 

However, if you are talking the average divorce which is reasonably civilized, the expansion into the territory of Shared Parenting really offers an opportunity, one that should not  be denied simply because our current Family Court lacks vision.  Parents should regularly be informed in Family Court that Shared Parenting is an option that they can pursue.

 

Personally, I think that Family Court needs to take into consideration the potential for extending the opportunity non residential parents have to spend time with their children.  I think the every other weekend schtick with one dinner a week is much too rigid and old fashioned in our day and age.

 

However, before the task force makes any recommendations and the legislature takes action, I would like to have the opportunity to read studies on the outcome of Shared Parenting situations.  I would like to hear the children of such arrangements have the opportunity to speak about what it is like.  Right now we are sort of operating in the dark. 

 

But we do need to be open to the future, to acknowledge that we no longer have the traditional family where one parent works full time while the other stays at home.  As a Mom going to lots of play groups and kid activities, I met quite a few full time at home Dads, which is completely new for our generation. 

 

Family Court needs to understand that the times are a changing and the Court needs to catch up to that. 

 

This is why there is so much dissatisfaction throughout the State right now in regard to custody matters.  For me, personally, I was offended that Family Court judges and attorneys seemed to expect me to be a clone of Betty Crocker, while lots of guys must feel pretty offended that the only thing judges and attorneys appear to see when they look at them are stacks of money bags. 

 

We live in the modern age where computers are outmoded six months or sooner after you buy them.  Fashionable clothing is practically outré the moment you put it on.  Family Court has got to adjust to that dynamic, as well as the dynamic that we have probably the most educated group of Family Court consumers than there has ever been before. 

 

So what do you guys think about this?  Does any of this make sense?  I'd love to hear your views in the comment section below!  Where do we go from here?