Oh FFS, at the end of the day the whole problem with any of these so called solutions "which take into consideration the childs needs" is that they actually dont. I know a lady whose son, who is now 10 years old has refused to see his father since the age of five, only because he recalls his dad pulling a knife out to his mum as well as other violent events. Unfortunately for him, his cries were ignored and was deemed insignificant because he "wasn't old enough to decide for himself".... so I rule out any suggestion that any of it is fair. His cries have only recently been listened to after years of his mum bribing him to attend contact centres so that she wouldnt get any hassle from his solicitor!!
Someone mentioned previously that if parents spent half the energy they do fighting on actually attending to their child's needs, the situation would probably be more harmonious. I don't naively accept that these things actually work, in actual fact most of the time they make things worse and it becomes about how much the parents resent each other. In other words, totally counter productive to the needs of the child.
Perhaps instead of using all these assumptions, we should insist that child access should be judged case by case instead of glossing the whole thing over with futile "solutions" which do not bear any respect to the child what so ever.
We all know shitty dads and shitty mums, theres no use slagging off one in favor of the other