FW: high conflict divorces / summary of research for and against shared parenting: F4J ENCOURAGES MEDIATION

[Marius Janse van Rensburg]

 

HI ALL   F4J  always encourages resolution through mediation rather than litigation, and actively promotes the concept of co-operative / shared parenting as best for children, even in high conflict situations   this email is rather long but offers a neutral perspective   the 1st article helps recognise high conflict divorces, which we are all caught in    the 2nd is a summary of the findings of numerous research articles for and against shared parenting   AS ALWAYS ITS UP TO YOU HOW BEST TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION: MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND, BUT REMEMBER IN FAMILY LAW CONFLICT THERE ARE NO WINNERS, ONLY LOSERS......please do use the mediators we recommend, and attorneys and social workers who subscribe to positive divorce and resolution   PLEASE DO ACT IN YOUR CHILDS BEST INTEREST, SO THAT THEY ARE THE WINNERS AND NOT THE PRIZE High Conflict Divorce Recognizing a High Conflict Divorce  Kathy J. Marshack, Ph.D., P.S. Licensed Psychologist & Family/Business Consultant Contempt of Court I sat in the Courtroom in utter disbelief that the Judge had just ordered both of my children to appear at the hearing the next day. I was in the middle of a divorce from my husband of 23 years and it was going very badly. In a power play by the Judge (also a long time colleague of my ex-husband, and the ex-wife of my lawyer), she ordered me to bring my children to Court so that she could interrogate them. The girls, aged 12 and 15 at the time were traumatized enough by their parents’ High Conflict Divorce, so it was beyond my comprehension that the Judge would put them through more torment by forcing them to take sides in the Courtroom. If I didn't bring the girls to Court the next day I would be found in Contempt of Court and fined, or put in jail or lose temporary custody of my children. If I brought them, how would I ever help them heal from one more emotional assault? My ex-husband (a divorce attorney himself) was in full agreement with the Judge about bringing the girls into this snake pit. Obviously I could not count on him to protect them. So I did the only thing a mother could do...neither the girls nor I showed up for Court the next day. The divorce process taught me a lot about what many of my clients go through so in one way it was useful if not pleasant. But the suffering of a High Conflict Divorce is not something that resolves quickly, especially if there are children involved. I suspect that my children and I will deal with symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress for years to come. What makes a High Conflict Divorce? Why was my divorce in this category when I am a professional psychologist? Why on earth would a Domestic Relations Judge (and a woman) be so insensitive to the needs of children? Is there another way to get these kinds of couples to resolve their divorces more amicably? While there are no easy answers I hope to answer these tough questions in a moment.  Three Kinds of Divorces Two things make a High Conflict Divorce possible...Motive and Means. Many people view their divorce as high conflict because it is stressful and because there are conflicts and confrontation. But the truth is that very few divorces are actually high conflict in the strict sense of this term. In my professional experience there are three kinds of divorce scenarios. Business-like divorce. The parties recognize that they are no longer in love, maybe never were, and just want  to go away. So they part amicably and unless there are children they have little contact in the future. If there are children, they handle things fairly and respectfully in order to provide quality parenting for their children. Friendly divorce. This couple recognizes that they probably would have made better friends than sweethearts, so the parting is amicable. Often these couples do indeed remain friends and share parenting comfortably with each other and future spouses. When people hear about this kind of divorce they are surprised but in truth about one third of couples actually have a friendly divorce. High Conflict divorce. Unfortunately this type of couple cannot resolve their differences in either a business like manner nor in a friendly way. They create a war that is costly and damaging to the children and to themselves.  In fact the damage they wreak spreads a wide net into their extended families and friends, and sometimes even into the greater community. In the long run this couple pays the price because they may never be able to restore their lives to healthy functioning. Controlling People Before getting to the motive and means behind high conflict divorce, let’s take a little detour to better understand the type of person who usually initiates a high conflict divorce. Author Patricia Evans calls them “Controlling People.” In a nutshell, controlling people are narcissistic and low on empathy. The narcissist acts as if he or she is the center of the Universe. In his or her eyes, their beliefs are the “right” ones. Their perspective is the “right one.” Their actions are the “right ones.” A natural outcome of the narcissistic personality is a lack of empathy for others.  While the narcissist is well aware of his or her feelings they have no concept of how the other feels. When you don’t know how another person feels it is extremely difficult to understand the other’s beliefs, perspective, or actions. Therefore, the narcissist is often negative and critical of the other if they disagree. Loving relationships require empathy to mature. If you have empathy for your spouse you know how he or she feels. This means you can relate to their beliefs, perspective and actions even if you do not agree. If you can relate you can be respectful and kind. Being able to step into another’s shoes is vital to a healthy relationship and to your own personal growth. Because they are different than us, our sweetheart in life, helps us to see things in new ways...ways we could never have understood without empathy. While controlling people are narcissistic and do not understand you, the other ingredient for a high conflict divorce is the narcissist’s counterpart, a person who works for equality in relationships. This type of person is often very nurturing and self-effacing, and has a strong sense of justice. Thus while the controlling person works toward a win-lose solution to problems, the nurturing or egalitarian person works for a win-win solution. According to Patricia Evans, this places the win-win person at a disadvantage. While the egalitarian person keeps empathizing with the controlling person in an effort to create a win-win solution, the controlling person views this behavior as weak and an opportunity to conquer. Essentially the controlling person creates a power struggle with the unwitting egalitarian. This keeps the egalitarian “on the hook,” so to speak because they can’t seem to realize that they will never create a win-win solution with a controlling person. Sadly it appears to be true that narcissists marry egalitarians and create high conflict divorces all too often. Motive and Means Personality alone is not enough to create a high conflict divorce.  The individuals also need Motive and Means.  “Means” generally equates to money and/or power.  If one or both parties have enough money to wage a war and they are not concerned with an unhealthy outcome (or not aware of this possibility), this leads to a high conflict divorce. But generally healthy people will quit the conflict when they recognize that they are throwing their money away. Only those snared by the narcissistic power struggle will continue to the “death.” Another source of means is power, which can come in a variety of forms. Being a divorce attorney is a source of power. Having a personal relationship with the Judge is a source of power. Being personally acquainted with  the local police and the city prosecutor helps. Being famous or having media connections is a source of power. All of these things can be used to create a high conflict divorce. A third source of means is being irrational and tenacious. Even without money or power, a person can create a high conflict divorce through simple means. There is an axiom that the most irrational and inconsistent person in the system is in control of the system because...they don’t follow the rules. If the controlling person is uncooperative, antagonistic, and dishonorable, a high conflict divorce will take shape. Then there is “motive.” If a person feels aggrieved and they are narcissistic, they can feel justified doing just about anything to trash and burn the other person. This includes dragging the children into the fray. And no matter how self-effacing the egalitarian is, he or she will fight back if pushed far enough. Thus the motive to protect and defend is aroused. Unfortunately trying to fight a narcissist is like dousing yourself with gasoline and lighting yourself on fire. Solutions to High Conflict Divorce In spite of this disheartening look at high conflict divorce, I still believe it is possible to prevent or at least better tolerate a high conflict divorce. Anyone going through a life changing experience like a divorce, high conflict or otherwise, should seek the support of a therapist, your church, and other groups supportive of your experience.  The Kanji for “Crisis” equates to “danger” and “opportunity.” In order to see the opportunities in something as tragic as a divorce you will need a level head. While friends and family may love you, your therapist will be more objective. You definitely need objectivity to stay out of the power struggles that the controlling person can create in a high conflict divorce. If at all possible work with a mediator to craft a win-win solution to your divorce. Be willing to compromise and to walk away with a “half fair deal.” In the long run, walking away from your money and possessions is worth it to avoid the acrimony. Remember, too, that it is only your perception that you are getting an unfair deal.  With the dollars you save on legal fees you can free up your life to explore a new and healthier way of living. On the other hand if you are up against a party who refuses to negotiate honorably, then you have to use another strategy. And the most important thing to consider is that your desire to be reasonable and fair may be exactly what does you in. When you seek a win-win solution but the other party seeks a win-lose solution, the other party is in the driver’s seat, at least in our current Divorce Court environment. So here is the simple answer if you do not wish to stoop to the underhanded level. Do your best to secure a fair, mediated agreement. If you cannot swing a mediated agreement with the controlling party, and in very short order, don’t hesitate and hope that he or she will somehow change their mind. You need to act swiftly before you are inundated. Give them what they want and count your blessings that they allowed you to get away. Never, ever, go to Court with a controlling person who wants nothing more than to trash and burn you especially if they have means (i.e. money or power). And never, ever, go to Court with a controlling person if you have children to protect. The Court system is designed to determine a winner and a loser, not resolve conflict amicably and certainly not to protect the innocent. If you are really a win-win type of person, you are no match for a system that does not hold the attacker responsible, but instead requires you to defend yourself against the constant attacks of the controlling person. You just can’t keep up. It is not easy to take the high road in these kinds of situations. Regardless of what you lose in the way of material goods or even psychological status in your community, trust that taking the high road means that you and your children will be able to sleep soundly at night. The gift to yourself and your family is to walk away from these Divorce Wars with your integrity and compassion in tact. That does count for something in God’s Eyes.   Shared parenting is best for children Submitted Tuesday, April 16, 2002 By Pennsylvania attorney Eugene Wrona Here are some results of studies conducted by competent researchers that substantiate that shared parenting is best for children in most cases. It's a little long, but contains many useful conclusions based on studies of multiple paradigms of families in separate households. I believe these summaries can be used to persuade politicians to support legislation advancing the mission of CCJ and the rights of children to unfettered access to both parents. Research on Shared Parenting and Joint Custody Joint custody and shared parenting (i.e., joint physical and legal custody) have been studied for more than a quarter-century, with the majority of studies indicating significant benefits for children. About a third of existing studies show no difference between joint and sole custody for children's adjustment to divorce. The critical factor appears to be conflict between parents. When parents cooperate and minimize conflict, children do better with shared parenting/joint physical custody. If there is significant conflict between parents, however, shared parenting provides no benefits and children do no better (and no worse) than they do in sole custody. This section summarizes some of the research published in the past decade. Joint Physical Custody -- Adolescents After Divorce, Buchanan, C., Maccoby, and Dornbusch, Harvard University Press,1996. A study of 517 families with children ranging in age from 10.5 years to 18 years, across a four and a half year period. Measures were: assessed depression, deviance, school effort, and school grades. Children in joint physical custody arrangements were found to have better adjustment on these measures than those in sole custody. American Psychological Association, Report to the U.S. Comm. on Child and Family Welfare, June 14, 1995. This report "summarizes and evaluates the major research concerning joint custody and its impact on children's welfare." The report concludes that "The research reviewed supports the conclusion that joint custody is associated with certain favorable outcomes for children including father involvement, best interest of the child for adjustment outcomes, child support, reduced relitigation costs, and sometimes reduced parental conflict." The APA also noted that "The need for improved policy to reduce the present adversarial approach that has resulted in primarily sole maternal custody, limited father involvement and maladjustment of both children and parents is critical. Increased mediation, joint custody, and parent education are supported for this policy." Wilkinson, Ronald Richard, "A Comparison of Children's Post-divorce Adjustment in Sole and Joint Physical Custody Arrangements Matched for Types of Parental Conflict" Doctoral dissertation, 1992; Texas Woman's University This study included "forty boys and girls, ages 8 to 12, in attendance at selected private secular and parochial schools in a large Southwestern metropolitan area participated, along with their middle to upper-class parents." The study compared adjustment of children in joint and sole physical custody, controlling for level of conflict between parents, to determine if parental conflict would be more detrimental to children in joint or sole custody. The author summarized findings as follows: "Overall, no significant difference between joint and sole physical custody groups was found." Rockwell-Evans, Kim Evonne, "Parental and Children's Experiences and Adjustment in Maternal Versus Joint Custody Families " Doctoral dissertation, 1991. North Texas State U. This study compared 21 joint custody and 21 maternal custody families, with children between the ages of 4-15. Results showed that misbehavior and "acting out" were more common among sole custody children: "A multiple regression analysis of these data found children in joint custody families had fewer behavioral adjustment problems with externalizing behavior than children in mother custody families." "Regardless of custody arrangement, parents with low self esteem were more likely to have children with behavioral adjustment problems when predicting the child's overall behavioral adjustment and internalized behavior." J. Pearson and N. Thoennes, "Custody After Divorce: Demographic and Attitudinal Patterns", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 60, 1990. "Consistent with other studies of joint and sole custody [citations], our joint legal and residential non-custodians were decidedly more involved with their children following divorce than were non-custodians in sole custody arrangements. . . . Lastly, respondents in joint custody arrangements were more apt to perceive their ex-spouse as having a good relationship with the children and to report satisfaction with that person's performance as a parent." " . . . conflict between divorcing parents in our sample did not appear to worsen as a result of the increased demand for inter-parental cooperation and communication in joint legal or joint residential custody arrangements. To the contrary, parents with sole maternal custody reported the greatest deterioration in the relationships over time." Glover, R. and C. Steele, "Comparing the Effects on the Child of Post-divorce Parenting Arrangements," Journal of Divorce, Vol. 12, No. 2-3 (1989). This study evaluated children aged 6 to 15 in the areas of locus of control, self-concept, and family relationships. The children were divided into three groups: shared custody, maternal custody, and intact families. Intact family children had averaged higher than divorced family children on self-concept and father relationships, and shared custody children averaged higher the sole custody children in these areas. Intact family children had fewer least-positive responses in all areas than divorced family children, and shared custody children had fewer least-positive responses than sole custody children in all areas except mother relationship. This study indicates that, on average, a two parent intact family is the best arrangement for children, and a shared parenting arrangement is better than a sole custody arrangement, i.e., a two-parent family is better even if parents are divorced. Ilfeld, Holly Zingale "Children's perceptions of their relationship with their fathers in three family constellations: mother sole custody, joint custody and intact families" Doctoral dissertation, U. of California, Davis 1989 This study evaluated children's perceptions of their fathers at least four years post-divorce, comparing joint custody, sole custody and intact families. The subjects were 43 latency-age children: 11 from maternal custody families, 14 from joint custody families and 18 controls from intact homes. Results: "There was a significant difference in the perceptions of children in sole and joint custody. Joint custody children reported spending more time with their fathers in child-centered activities, activities which were considered pleasurable and important to children." And: "No differences were found as a function of custody arrangements in children's perceptions of emotional closeness to the father, acceptance by the father, or fathers's potency or activity." Lerman, Isabel A. "Adjustment of latency age children in joint and single custody arrangements" California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, 1989 This study evaluated 90 children, aged 7 to 12, divided equally among maternal, joint legal, and joint physical custody groups. Results showed negative effects for sole custody: "Single custody subjects evidenced greater self-hate and perceived more rejection from their fathers than joint physical custody subjects." Conflict between parents was found to be a significant factor, which may explain the better adjustment for joint physical custody children: "Degree of inter-parental conflict was a significant predictor of child self-hate. Higher conflict was associated with greater self-hate; lower conflict was associated with lower self-hate." "Higher father-child contact was associated with better adjustment, lower self-hate, and lower perceived rejection from father; lower father-child contact was associated with poorer adjustment, higher self-hate, and higher perceived rejection from father. " Extreme Situations In situations with high levels of conflict, mental illness, or domestic violence, joint physical custody is no better (and no worse) than sole custody. Surviving the Breakup, J. Wallerstein and J. Kelly; Second Chances, J. Wallerstein and S. Blakeslee; and other publications. Judith Wallerstein and colleagues have produced many publications on a 20+ year study of 184 families that had been referred to her clinic for therapy. The parents were predominantly mentally ill, with approximately half the men and half the women "moderately disturbed or frequently incapacitated by disabling neuroses and addictions," including some who were "sometimes suicidal." An additional 20% of the women and 15% of the men were categorized as "severely disturbed." Approximately one third of the sample were considered to have "adequate psychological functioning" before divorce. Although there was a significant level of attrition, with families dropping out of the study when problems were resolved, some conclusions emerged from the remaining families. Children in joint custody situations did no better than those in sole custody, indicating that parents must be reasonably psychologically healthy for shared parenting to benefit children. Johnston, Janet R., Marsha Kline, and Jeanne M. Tschann, "Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Oct. 1989). Johnston et al. studied 100 low income families involved in ongoing custody disputes that included frequent verbal and physical aggression. Approximately one third of the children were in joint physical custody arrangements averaging 12 days per month with the less-seen parent, with the others in either mother or father sole physical custody averaging 4 days a month with the less-seen parent. The study found that "there was no clear evidence that children are better adjusted in either custody type", and that "mean scores for the Child Behavior Checklist lie within the normal range for all custody types." Also, "there was no evidence that the clinically disturbed children were more likely to be in joint than in sole custody." However, the study did find that more frequent contact between parents in either joint or sole custody arrangements was "associated with more emotional and behavioral problems in the children." Johnston's study indicates that shared parenting may not reduce disputes between parents in extreme high-conflict situations, but also shows that sole custody does not protect children from the effects of conflict between parents. In high conflict situations, it is probably better to reduce interaction between parents. For example, parents can pick up children from school instead of from the other parent's house. The study did find one significant benefit from shared parenting even in these cases: "Only one parent with joint custody ceased contact with her child, whereas 12 parents of sole custody children 'dropped out'." Thus joint custody does appear to protect children from the complete loss of a parent, even in high conflict situations. Joint Legal Custody Although not as beneficial to children as equal shared parenting (joint physical custody), joint legal custody helps to some extent. The main benefits of joint legal custody are in reducing visitation interference and improving child support compliance. Joint legal custody has been consistently linked with more parental involvement, higher child support compliance, and less conflict between parents. Until recently, however, it was not clear whether these benefits occurred as a result of joint legal custody, or simply because more cooperative parents chose joint custody in the first place. The 1997 study by Seltzer provides strong evidence for a cause and effect relationship between joint legal custody and the benefits associated with it. Seltzer, J. "Father by Law: Effects of Joint Legal Custody on Non-residential Fathers Involvement with Children," NSFH Paper No. 75, Feb., 1997, U. of Wisconsin-Madison, http://ssc.wisc.edu/cde/nsfhwp/home.htm Seltzer used data from the National Survey of Families and Households, a survey of over 13,000 families that collected data in two waves, 1987-88 and 1992-94. Because the study included data on the quality of family relationships, it was possible to study the effects of joint legal custody while controlling from pre-separation family relationships by analyzing data on families that had separated between the survey waves. Seltzer concluded that "Controlling for the quality of family relationships before separation and socioeconomic status, fathers with joint legal custody see their children more frequently, have more overnight visits, and pay more child support than fathers in families in which mothers have sole legal custody." She suggests that joint legal custody helps reduce visitation denial: "By clarifying that divorced fathers are 'by law' still fathers, parents' negotiations about fathers' participation in child rearing after divorce may shift from trying to resolve whether fathers will be involved in child rearing to the matter of how fathers will be involved." [emphasis in original] Gunnoe, M.L., and S.L. Braver, "The Effects of Joint Legal Custody on Family Functioning, Controlling for Factors that Predispose a joint award," Child Development. This study evaluated 273 families, controlling for 28 variables that influence a predisposition to agree on joint legal custody. Controlling for these factors, children in joint legal custody families had more time with their fathers and fewer adjustment an behavior problems. The custody type, however, did not affect the adjustment of fathers or mothers post-divorce, conflict between ex-spouses, or child support compliance. Sanford Braver,"Determining the Impact of Joint Custody on Divorcing Families", Study consisted of 378 families; some with unmatched partners, in various custody arrangements. ". . .Sharlene Wolchik, Iwrin Sandler and I found in 1985 that children in joint custody had higher feelings of self-worth than children in sole maternal custody." "Our results showed considerable benefits for joint custody, even when equating predisposing factors. After this adjustment, children in joint custody were found to be significantly better adjusted, and to exhibit less antisocial and impulsive behavior than sole custody families. Fathers also visited more, and were more involved in child care, as well as more satisfied with the divorce settlement. Mothers, however, were significantly less satisfied with the custody arrangements in joint custody families." "When the couple disagrees initially, which is better for the family, for the father to get his preference (joint [custody]) or for the mother to get her preference (sole [custody])? We found that the groups differed significantly in terms of how much financial child support was paid: when sole custody was that arrangement despite the fathers' wishes, 80% was paid (according to what the father reported; the figure was 64% by mothers' report), while when joint custody was awarded despite the mothers' preference, it zoomed to almost perfect comliance (97% by fathers' report; 94% by mothers' report) . . . A similar relationship was found for fathers' contact with the child. It was significantly highest for the group in which joint custody was awarded despite the mothers' preference." "Joint custody, even when awarded despite the contrary preference of the mother, leads to more involved fathers, and almost perfect of financial child support; controlling for predisposing factors, it leads to better adjusted children. . . We believe these findings call for policy makers, in the best interest of the children, to adopt a presumption that is rebuttable for joint legal custody, that is, a judicial preference that both parents retain their right and responsibilities toward their children post divorce." ARE YOU ACTING IN YOUR CHILDS BEST INTEREST? REGARDS ASIF DR ASIF SULEMAN [MbChB-NATAL] REGIONAL CO-ORDINATOR FATHERS-4-JUSTICE[KZN] 453 WINDERMERE RD,  MORNINGSIDE DURBAN   082 777 55 77 031-312 34 88 /032 944 3769 0865 165 915     INTENDED RECIPIENTS ONLY.F4J IS A REGISTERED NGO/NPO ACTIVELY PROMOTING A CHILDS BEST INTERESTS AFTER PARENTAL SEPERATION.PARENTAL ALIENATION IS CHILD ABUSE.LET OUR KIDS BE THE WINNERS AND NOT THE PRIZE

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1329 - Release Date: 2008/03/14 12:33 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1329 - Release Date: 2008/03/14 12:33 PM