children are "damaged" by shared care

It is strange that we have both noticed what is happening independently MrsMatsisfun, a pity neither of us is qualified to have a relavent opinion though.

The real truth has been identified by HRH above of course: money is the real driver. This will not be popular (and I will probably be told I don''t understand yet again, and by the same commentators) but we would not tolerate the gross sexual discrimination we see in family law in any other part of our society.

Ho hum.

Follow the money as HRH said. It''s just as simple as that.

Through my journey in the family court, claims were made without scientific evidence by these so called experts, e.g. CAFCASS officer. False allegations were treated as the truth with the infallible phrase of balance of probability in family court. It really went against all the logical thinking that I had learned through education, work, etc.

Best interest of child? Perhaps in extreme cases, say domestic violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc. In the majority of the cases, the child should have the rights to spend roughly equal amount of time with both parents.

What is the end game for the best interest of child? How do we prove it statistically?
- The child of divorce finishes university education as a minimum?
- The child earns double the national average during working life?
- The child donates more to charities than a "normal" child?
If it''s not about money and career, what is it then? If it''s about emotional health, why would a child want to see less of either parent?

In terms of the dynamics of society, the majority of mothers tend to stay at home and look after the kids. Some have given their careers to do so. This should be recognised.

The trouble is, the system links having the kids more time means more money, e.g. divorce settlement, housing, benefits, child maintenance, etc.
Child should not be strongly linked to money. Money distribution between parents should be mean tested.
e.g. If the mother has less income and earning potential, she gets a larger share or all of the benefits regardless the number of nights the kids stay with her.
As a deterrent to use the child to carry out emotional revenge, the parent wanting more than 50% of time with the kids will have to forfeit some money.

Then again, bullying the parent who can pay up is easier to administrate as a system… Just don''t say to me it''s best for the child.

Dear Bab,
I believe you are correct,: many of the issues regarding disruption to children come about because of the causal connection the family law system has between residence and money. I believe that in order to keep social welfare costs down CAFCASS has become institutionally biased against fathers, which alienates many fathers and in my opinion leads to significant problems for children.
A good solution would be to start from a situation of 50:50 shared parenting and for the separating parents to then justify why that should not be the case, rather than the current CAFCASS model of residency normally being with the mother unless the father tries really hard to play a larger part.
Although it is true that many mothers have given up careers for child care, this is not always the case and when fathers do the same this is not taken into account by CAFCASS (in my case I had retired and my ex-wife was working full time, but CAFCASS refused to accept I was any better situated to care for our (then 8 year old) son). Clearly there is not equality or equality of opportunity, and I believe the current bias is only in place to keep welfare costs down.
Unfortunately (for children generally) there is no driver to change the current arrangements. CAFCASS will continue to be biased against fathers because it is generally easier to get them to pay for child maintenance, mothers will continue to resist shared residency because otherwise they will receive smaller settlements from the estate, CSA (or it''s successor) will continue to catagorise one parent (almost exclusively the father) as being non resident and do hound him for money, and most importantly many children will grow up seeing little of one parent (almost always their father) which I frequently observe to be very detrimental to their wellbeing.
A

The orginial post was about an article re claims made by Penelope Leach, not about CAFCASS or the way the courts work or child maintenance.

There are various claims. I really want to be shown statistical figures to support either side of the argument.

Overnight stay is the quantifiable item that can be divided, reduced, increased, etc. I am keen the find out what quantifiable things that can be affected by the percentage of overnight stays split between 2 parents.

Anxiety, distressing, damaging, brain development, etc. all have meanings. However, they are very very hard to be quantified.

Academic achievement and working career are quantifiable. But can we really say people achieved less academically or career-wise are not as "good" as the rest in the society, regardless of they are children of divorce of not?

Justaparent wrote:

I would have thought it''s hostile separations that cause children problems.

^^^^This^^^^^^!!!!

WR

At the risk of being chastised again...
Psychology is a very I exact science. In the case of this report there seems to be scant evidence to support a dubious hypothesis, but still it achieves considerable exposure.
Conversely I have seen no research exploring my (and MrsMathsisfun''s) patently obvious observations in school that there is a very strong correlation between habitually disruptive children and those who do not have significant contact with their fathers, or a good male role model in their lives. From my observations the correlation is 100% with a standard deviation (at the 95% confidence level) of 0; but perhaps as a mere engineer (to MSc level) there is something I don''t understand about the evidence that means it does not support my hypothesis: children need their fathers as well as their mothers.
I''ll look forward to being shot down again for having politically not correct enough views of the real world.
Have a nice day,
A