Family court- why doesn’t character and parenting matter

[whatsmissing]

Can anyone explain to me why in family court, when one parent wants more time with the child/ren than the other will agree to, why don’t they assess both parents’ character and parenting and home environment, and have some kind of standard scoring framework, and then allocate time accordingly so the child gets more time being raised with a better parent, in a better parenting style, in a better environment? And then have a process to reassess every X years or if requested if circumstances change?

Obviously this will raise the question of what is better. It will come down to values and research I suppose but it’s pretty obvious. Honest is better than lying. Peaceful is better than violent. Respectful is better than abusive. Towards others not just toward child. Because children are influenced by behaviours around them.

This is only scratching the surface, there are lots of every day positives like organising positive things for child and living a healthy life with positive supportive networks/social connections , and supporting child to be healthy and maintaining a clean nice home with peaceful atmosphere etc etc, things that are good for the child. And also history of time spent with child, relationship etc. Ability to respond appropriately to child, support and hold boundaries where needed. Ability to reflect and learn and admit mistakes and repair conflict not escalate it.

There must be a million things that are known to be good for children. Why aren’t we using that knowledge to get the child as good an upbringing as possible, rather than starting from 50/50?

I’m not saying the child should not see their less capable parent, but that this assessment should be considered alongside and balanced with giving some time with both parents in order to optimise things for the child.

Wouldnt family court be a more beneficial process if it was structured like this. Wouldn’t it save some of the grief if people could see in advance how it was likely to come out. Wouldnt there be less post separation abuse if people knew it would negatively affect court outcomes. Wouldnt an accepted definition of good character and parenting be a helpful thing for people to look at outside of the court process.

Come on then, shoot it down! Are there good reasons things are as bonkers as they are, with little kids being forced to spend large amounts of time with parents who are basically assholes or incompetent parents, but not deemed dangerous enough for it to matter?

Better is subjective. What you think of as better someone else would disagree with. In that situation who's better is actually better. It's far too nuanced for there to be a definitive.

You also need to wonder where you stop considering what could affect the child. How far do you dig into the parents lives to decide what is better. It would require a huge amount of resources to go down this road. Without any clear benefits in doing this who can justify that amount of work?

So you asked about attachments.

this is quite a good summary of early attachment

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-attachment-theory-2795337

basically babies get emotionally attached to their caregivers.

further research shows that babies and very young g children are able to form attachments to more than one person but if too many people are caregivers (imagine an orphanage with lots of people on shift) they do not get attached at all and this is really problematic.

See the research on kids in Rumanian orphanages. Significant deficits in nearly all areas of human functioning.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/06/neglect

the nursery system of key workers is based on this as while most babies and young children at nurseries have an attachment to their primary caregiver they are also experiencing a shift system of care and the key worker system is an attempt to make sure the child is able to form attachments at nursery.

in light of this, most courts in most jurisdictions will not remove children from the primary caregiver (usually the mother) unless there is really really horrendous things going on.

for example, in most Islamic countries custody of any under 7 children goes to the mother. In the U.K., this page (although specifically about breastfeeding) gives examples of cases where the presumption is that small babies should be with their mother and the father would have short frequent access.

https://abm.me.uk/breastfeeding-information/breastfeeding-and-family-break/

You can't b serious OP! You really think it is obvious for a judge to decide who is the parent?

It's nothing but obvious. Some people are more eloquent than other, can express themselves better, have better solicitors, think nothing of lying. More importantly, might have very different views on what is best for their children with neither being wrong.

The courts are already very overloaded, which is why they made attending a mediation information session a requirement before even being able to apply. They can also now demand an explanation as to why a parent has refused and even now demand that they try mediation all together.

The courts don't have the time and resources to deal with what you are suggesting.

Ultimately, it does really come down to selection of the other parents of your children. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure the best for the children, not judges.

Because it doesn’t matter in law ….each parent has PR …unless they deemed unfit to care for that child then it makes no difference whether what their character is or whether they are Mary poppins …or just doing a good enough job….nobody got time for nothing else 🤷‍♀️

well it could be made to have a change of process, like introducing victim effect statements.....but why would it?

If you weren't a good judge of his character why would you think a Court would be?

If you had weeks/ months/ years of intimate opportunity to assess his character and judged him to be a good bet as a parent why would you think a few professionals assessing him for a few hours would be a better judge than you?

@whatsmissing Lots of families don’t argue about dc in court. My DD is a family barrister and says many parents agree on 5 nights out of 14 for the non resident parent. Many people agree with this and don’t argue unless something goes wrong. This can be illness, job issues, drug taking etc. When the parenting is very poor, supervised visits are ordered. Dreadful parents don’t get 50:50. Some parents just cannot manage that with very good reason. It doesn’t mean they don’t love their dc or aren’t good parents.

Also be aware that whilst on paper a parent can have lots of people saying they are a fantastic person and parent, it doesn't mean that behind closed doors the parent really isn't that fantastic parent/person. And there's no one to dispute that other than the other parent and children (if they even realise that's the case). As another poster says, it doesn't mean that either parent doesn't love the child(ren). Abuse/bad parenting takes many forms.

But that’s an absolutely massive difference.

I can promise you, from very bitter personal experience, that seeing children EOW - when you’ve gone from 100% to a couple of years of 50/50 to then EOW separated by hours of travel - is both soul destroying and relationship destroying (or at least massively relationship deteriorating).

Only the parent on the ‘right’ side of an EOW arrangement would ever pretend to think it’s a healthy option for their kids.

Because courts aren’t in the business of social engineering. They get involved when they absolutely have to, but the bar is low for ‘good enough’ and it’s not for a court to try to ensure children have the absolute best parenting (whatever that means and whoever would be the judge of that anyway).

There is this famous quote from a Senior Family Court Judge:

’“…society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others will flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”’

@PaterPower That’s absolutely not true. Many parents accept a 5/9 split to keep dc in one home for the bulk of the school week.It greatly helps to maintain routines for dc. Where they live is not about your needs. It’s about theirs.

Uh huh… let me guess which side of that split you’re on.

I understand where your thought comes from. It can be very hard to send your child to the other parent when they are not a responsible or safe person and children can find it very unsettling not to have a base.

Considering character and parenting the way you are suggesting seems impossible to judge except in extreme circumstances, but stability for the child could be a bigger factor in decision making in court if the basis for decision making was rebalanced.

It would be reasonable, for example, for it to be more reflected in arrangements when a child has had a primary carer. 50/50 makes so much more sense when parents have played equal and similar roles but this isn’t always the case. You can be advised not even to use the words primary carer in court even when this has been the reality to an extreme degree, as to say this is could be seen as denigrating the other parent. Putting more weight on this could provide more stability for children, allowing a child continued access to the proven day to day support and base they are used to (and the bond that usually accompanies that) while having contact and a relationship with the other parent - just not half the time together.

@PaterPower Neither side. This is the whole problem isn’t it? You take sides and divide up dc to your side or the other. No parent will get every weekend but every other weekend is very usual but it must put dc first and not carve them up into supporting one side or the other. As a result, a split as I suggested is very very normal where dc are put first and possession is sidelined.

It’s nothing to do with ‘possession’ (despite how many RPs like to make it about that) but with keeping relationships strong between the kids and BOTH parents.

EOW doesn’t do that. At all.

Going from a situation where you’ve co-parented and seen your kids every day to 50:50 puts enough strain on the parental bond. Going to EOW severs a lot of the former closeness.

You miss all the details about school. You’re not there to help with homework, or read to them (or be read to). Weekends become truncated by travel and routines are more difficult to establish.

If EOW was such a wonderful solution (for the kids or the NRP) then you’d see many more Mums opting to be the ‘weekender.’ But they don’t.

I really can’t think why not… 🙄

@PaterPower How do you think service families manage then? Of course a slightly uneven agreement doesn’t mean dc prefer one parent over another. It’s pragmatic in many situations and is not about equal love arising from equal possession. And divvying up in equal shares is exactly that - possession.

Because the concept of 'good enough parenting' is still as true now as it was in the 50s when it was first recognised.

The court isn't there to assess parenting capability - that's the role of Social Services - and if there are concerns, then the court will be notified of that (via the cafcass initial safeguarding, and any s7 or s37 reports that may be done).

Someone up-thread coined it nice and clearly, the child's attachment and needs are paramount, and a frankly marginal parent having contact some of the time, as long as the child is safe, will result in contact, even if the other parent doesn't think it's a good idea.

Emotionally/psychologically, growing up knowing your parent saw you (even intermittently), loved you (in their own way), and managed as best they could (even though to everyone else it was crap), is better than knowing they walked away and couldn't be bothered with you (as an adult they can adjust to the former, but the latter is an outright rejection that can make them question their own worth). That's why so many good parents put up with their lousy ex partner's - for the sake/benefit of the kids.

Some contact, in almost all cases, is better than no contact at all.

(And note I said 'almost all cases', there are always going to be anomalies.)

Are you speaking from experience? I am.

I’m both an army brat (Dad did 16 years) and a divorced father who did more than half of parenting my kids when married, moved to 50:50 on separation for a couple of years and was then forced into EOW by a court of three magistrates who seemed determined to let my cheating exW get what she wanted, prior legal precedent (and common sense) be damned.

I KNOW how the relationship with my DC changed. I KNOW how comparatively distant my Dad seemed vs my Mum, given he was on deployment or exercises a lot through earlier childhood. I’m not guessing. I’m not basing it off something I’ve read, or what I ‘think’ should be true.

So I’ll (somewhat) respectfully disagree with you. Should you ever be in the unfortunate position of a relationship breaking down, where DC are involved, then do me a favour please. YOU take the EOW and let your ex have the rest. Leave it 6-8 months and tell me THEN whether your relationship with your kids is the same. Because if you tell me it is, I’ll know you’re either deluded, or lying through your teeth.