Thoughts on Shared Parenting Presumptions (Part 3/4)
© 2013 By Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. Thoughts on Shared Parenting Presumptions (Part 3/4) Research It has been said that you can find research to support any opinion, and that is particularly true in the area of parenting after divorce or separation. However, most of the research emphasizes different aspects of the same problem, so that we can benefit from looking at the research – so long as we make the effort to understand it. The following are quotes from studies reported in the Family Court Review, the journal of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), one of the most respected sources of information on parenting in divorce. Some studies support equal shared parenting schedules: Respondents [college students in one study] wanted to have spent more time with their fathers as they were growing up, and the living arrangement they believed was best was living equal time with each parent. The living arrangements they had as children gave them generally little time with their fathers. Respondents reported that their fathers wanted more time with them but that their mothers generally did not want them to spend more time with their fathers. (Fabricius and Hall, Young Adult Perspectives on Divorce, Family Court Review, October 2000.) The present findings [in another college student study] indicate that divorce leaves young people with strong feelings of “missed opportunities” and “emotional longing” for a father-child relationship – feelings that remain salient for years after the divorce has been finalized….The present results thus are consistent with calls for family law reform mandating that children spend equal amounts of time with their mothers and fathers following divorce. (Schwartz and Finley, Mothering, Fathering, and Divorce: The Influence of Divorce or Reports of and Desires for Maternal and Paternal Involvement, Family Court Review, July 2009.) Other studies oppose shared parenting mandates: Australian family law now endorses the active consideration of equal or substantively shared parenting in most cases where parents are able to share overall parental responsibility and decision-making [defined as] a division of care between parents at a rate of 35:65% or higher. [Prior to the new legislation, such an arrangement] was “relatively rare,” occurring in about 9% of the general population of divorcing families in 2003. It was a parenting arrangement that proved viable for a small and distinct group of families …electing a shared arrangement [with] the ability of parents to get along sufficiently well…. [In contrast] the literature is stronger on the poor fit between shared parenting and unremitting post-divorce conflict. Beginning two decades ago, Johnston and colleagues…identified cautions against substantively shared parenting for children whose parents’ ongoing acrimony and inability to encapsulate their conflict meant continued exposure to toxic inter-personal dynamics and the diminished responsiveness of each parent…. [After] four years children in shared care arrangements… reported sustained levels of inter-parental conflict, while children in traditional [primary parent] arrangements reported significant decline [in conflict]. Children in shared care were also significantly more likely to report feeling caught in the middle of their parents’ conflict [and] children more often wished to change [the shared arrangement]. (McIntosh, Legislating for Shared Parenting: Exploring Some Underlying Assumptions, Family Court Review, July 2009.) It helps to look at the different emphases of these studies. The first favoring more father contact was reported during the college years. It appears that these young adults grew up when fathers were generally less involved than many are today – by the agreement of both parents. From my recent mediation cases, I have observed that younger parents are much more likely to develop parenting plans with a greater role for fathers than I observed when I started my law practice in 1993. However, the majority of these plans are not equal shared parenting plans, but often 25-30% with fathers who are satisfied with these schedules. If the young adults in the first set of studies had this amount of time with their fathers and if their mothers supported their father’s relationship with them, it may be that they would have felt more satisfied. Their opinions about equal parenting time were a conjecture rather than based on experience. Their perspective may have also been based on their more recent adolescent years. The second set of studies (McIntosh reports on Johnston’s studies as well as her own), emphasize the experience of younger children living in shared parenting arrangements – and feeling distress. When I heard Jennifer McIntosh speak at the 2011 AFCC conference, I remember her examples of children about 8 years old and younger. Especially in a culture where only 9% of divorced families had a history of shared parenting, it may be these children felt frustrated because of their young age and their experiences with young peers who appeared to have the “benefit” of growing up with a “primary” parent. What this research suggests to me is that there are two very different issues involved here: 1) At what age is a primary parent preferable and at what age is shared parenting preferable? 2) Does shared parenting work if it is imposed, rather than the agreement of the parents? It appears to me, from reading this and a lot of other research, that there really are at least three distinctly separate age periods affected by children of divorce and separation, with different abilities and needs, as I described above. Equal shared parenting arrangements appear very likely to fail during the first 3 years – the most important formative years of a child’s life. While I have seen some highly cooperative couples manage this by age 4, I have also seen children of 6 and 7 struggling with equal shared schedules. A significant factor is the parenting history. Moving suddenly from a primary parent system (say, 80-20) to shared parenting system (say, 50-50), can be traumatic for a child who might otherwise handle it as a gradual transition. Likewise, from my experience and observations, I have seen many cooperative 50-50 parenting plans for children age 5-12 change to one primary house during
Thoughts on Shared Parenting Presumptions (Part 2/4)
© 2013 By Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. Thoughts on Shared Parenting Presumptions (Part 2/4) Different Needs at Different Ages Birth to age 5: Generally, this is a period when children need lots of stability and “secure attachment” experiences with both parents. Generally, it appears best to have one parent with the majority of the time and the other parent having frequent access, although this doesn’t have to be long to be beneficial for this age child. It’s the frequency that matters. For various reasons, biological and historical, mothers have had the majority of time during these years, although fathers have been very actively and successfully involved as long as they didn’t undermine the development of a secure attachment with the mother. The most important part is that the child has a secure attachment with both parents, regardless of time: that they are predictable, consistent and emotionally available when they are with the child. I agree with the majority of researchers I have read over the past thirty years, such as the following comments in the introduction to a journal on the subject of child attachment in divorce: One widespread view shared by this Issue’s contributors is that children should be assigned to the primary custody of one parenting figure (whether mother or father) across approximately the first three years of life…. Such a position – if taken consistently by the court – should contribute to the alleviation of this often central focus of parental stress, confusion and contentiousness. In addition, many papers in this Issue may also serve to reduce the worries of the ‘visiting’ parent via an understanding that his or her relationship during infancy and toddlerhood need not ultimately be ‘secondary’ in any important sense. Thus, so long as the ‘visiting’ parent can maintain regularity of contact which involves lively, sensitive interactions with the child, the child’s opportunity for forming a full and secure attachment to that parent will remain intact. Judges informed by these views can (a) alleviate the strain incurred by both parents engaged in a well-meaning but untoward attempts at designing ‘half-and-half’ early care arrangements; and (b) reassure the ‘secondary’, ‘visiting’ parent that his/her opportunity for establishing a full relationship with the child need not be compromised. Attachment Theory and Research, Main et al., Family Court Review, Vol. 49 No. 3, July 2011 (426-463), 427. When my clients are the parents with much less parenting time during this period, I reassure them that these early years are laying the groundwork for all future relationships for the child, so that having stability and security of contact for the child with the other parent will benefit my client in developing a relationship later on of equal significance, whether or not there is equal time later on. In some of my cases, it has been the father who has had the majority of this parenting time and the child has developed quite a secure primary attachment. However, most of the time it has been the mother and there is some research that reinforces the biological precedent for this – from pregnancy to children having more neurons for processing a woman’s voice in early childhood. In either case, it is more important that the child have at least one consistently secure attachment at this age, than to have two insecure attachments with parents who are undermining each other. Of course, if the primary parent is seriously disturbed then he or she should have much less than 50% of the parenting time so that the other parent (assuming he or she is less disturbed) can provide a secure primary attachment. However, in general, both parents can have secure attachments during this age period, even if one has a lot more time than the other. It’s the interactive quality and consistency of the relationship that makes it secure or not, not the amount of time. A presumption for equal shared parenting time during these early years could undermine the child’s ability to develop a secure attachment with either parent and thereby undermine his or her sense of security and long-term personality development (insecure early childhood attachment appears to be one of the main factors in developing adult personality disorders). Age 5-12: Generally, this is the age range when children seem to do fine with relatively equal shared parenting. There are a variety of schedules (2-2-5-5; alternate weeks – with a mid-week visit with the other parent; etc.) that seem to work, so long as the parents both support the schedule. If they don’t both support the schedule, then it’s easy to make this fail. (I’ve seen many cases where one parent who is uncomfortable with the schedule says “it’s too many back-and-forths” or “too long away.” Then the child appears to absorb this parent’s concern and makes the exact same complaints – even though many other children with relaxed parents seem to do fine with these schedules.) The key here is that these are cooperative parents, and that their children have been raised with both parents actively involved. There are many other children who experience significant distress by having a shared parenting schedule, who are much happier to have a primary parent (65% or more) and less time with the other parent. Fighting against such a schedule usually increases the child’s anxiety, rather than increasing their happiness. Of course, there are some cases (domestic violence, alienation, etc.) in which I have encouraged a “noncustodial” parent to fight for a change in custody because the primary parent has had serious behavior problems. But if the effort has not succeeded after a year or two, I have advised many parents to stop the fight if they have at least 25% of the parenting time, as it will not help the child to be raised in the context of an endless battle. I have had several cases in which the noncustodial parent developed a much stronger relationship after the child turned 18 or 20, because they had stopped the battle years before when
Can Borderlines Share Parenting?
Response to Article: Can Borderlines Share Parenting? © 2013 By Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. In 2010, when my book Don’t Alienate the Kids! Raising Resilient Children While Avoiding High Conflict Divorce was published, I wrote a blog titled: Can Borderlines Share Parenting? Since then I have had over 50 blog comments covering the range of difficulties and thoughtful ways to manage them, when co-parenting with someone with borderline personality disorder (BPD). New comments are still being posted. The most recent one made some good points that I thought I’d share with everyone below. In a day or two, I’ll re-post my original blog on this topic, if anyone wants to see it and comment. Anonymous said… Hi, I hate always reading negative stories about BPD. I am a father of one 5-year-old boy and yes, I struggled immensely with unstable emotions. However, I think each should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I have been seeking help and in therapy for over 2 years and take mood-stabilizing medication. I have overcome many of the problems I had and am a full-time student in a University who just completed a BA in psychology with a 3.81 GPA. I was also accepted to grad school as a school psychologist and will be working directly with children. Despite BPD being extremely difficult and an affliction I’ll likely live with till I die, there are exceptions and there are people that succeed at parenting. It is the knowledge of what I was missing as a child, the love and unconditional support that makes them especially salient messages between me and my child. I don’t want him to go through what I did which makes me all the more invested. I do worry however that if I lost custody or he was taken away how I would handle it. In my experience that’s what makes a BPD vulnerable is that they feel that everyone leaves them, and it can feel devastating and reaffirm deep-seated feelings of shame. Shame differs from guilt in that it focuses on the individual rather than the behavior; to feel unworthy of being happy or being loved. Can you imagine feeling like that? That what you most deeply desire as a social animal is out of reach for you? To be loved, needed, accepted? Just keep in mind this originates in childhood, with parents that are supposed to convey love and security leave you instead associating those feelings with fear and anxiety. UGH! Like the last comment that was on [this original blog on this topic], people are individuals. If someone is an alcoholic, it doesn’t mean that they drink till they pass out. It’s different for each individual and is affected by environment. Most of the people on [the original blog] seem to have as black-and-white thinking as I supposedly do. Life is not a binary people, but a spectrum and subject to environment and number of resources. Anyone with BPD should look into Compassion Focused Therapy, as well as anyone seeking a deeper understanding of human emotions and motivations. [June 22, 2013] Bill Eddy said… Dear Anonymous, I’m so glad you left your comment and helped explain what its like for someone struggling with managing and overcoming this problem. You are to be congratulated on your efforts to manage your emotions and your successes. You are right that childhood should be a time of love and guidance, not shame and blame. You make a good point about avoiding black and white thinking. We’re all learning! Best wishes, Bill Eddy. [June 23, 2013] In my book published in July 2010 (Don’t Alienate the Kids!), I suggest that it is important for children to have two parents – especially to prevent child alienation which can lead to difficulties in adult relationships. This means shared parenting in separation or divorce, even with a parent with a personality disorder, including borderline personality disorder (BPD). Of course, safety issues must be addressed, to protect children from physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and emotional abuse. In some cases, this means supervised visitation, but in most cases this is not realistic or necessary. This means that there may be more time with a reasonable parent, or even equal parenting time. But this is not an easy question. I have had cases as a therapist and as a family law attorney in which a Borderline has attempted suicide after losing a custody hearing. I have had cases in which a Borderline left town after losing primary physical custody. It is very hard for a Borderline to share parenting, because of their all-or-nothing thinking. Yet to exclude a Borderline parent is to teach children that all-or-nothing parenting is appropriate. And to seek court orders that exclude a Borderline parent, or takes away primary physical custody from a Borderline, just feeds a high-conflict battle that goes on for years. This is especially true because family courts are generally uninformed about personality disorders, and the adversarial setting reinforces extreme behaviors while minimizing mental disorders. Borderlines (and I use this term to indicate a condition, not a whole person – just like an alcoholic or diabetic) typically share their all-or-nothing thinking repeatedly with their children, and the DSM-IV (the manual used by mental health professionals) says that the children of Borderlines have a 5 times greater chance of developing borderline personality disorder (BPD) themselves. This means that shared parenting with a Borderline requires a very reasonable other parent, who can teach the children lessons that will help them not develop the disorder themselves – lessons such as flexible thinking, managed emotions and moderate behaviors. I have had a few cases where this did work, even in a 50-50 arrangement. In some cases, the Borderline has had 60% of the parenting time. In others, the Borderline has had a much smaller percentage, such as 15%, but it has been stable after a lot of work and clear court orders. I am interested in the points of view of parents who are