MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Interesting article on Equal Shared-Care

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 1:20 pm Tue 7th July 2015

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/michael-reed/why-does-no-one-talk-about-benefits-of-shared-custody

13 Responses to “Interesting article on Equal Shared-Care”

  1. DJ Ward says:

    I recently was involved in a conversation with a women about a couple who were spliting up. The split did not involve lawyers until the father made it clear that he wanted 50/50 shared care. The mother then engaged a lawyer, now lawyer for the child, now psycologists etc. The women I was having a conversation with felt it would be unfair to the mother to be seperated from her children for such long periods of time ‘week on week off’. I asked her, what about him? is it fiar that he should only see his kids every second weekend etc? But he’s a man, they are her kids, was the reply.

    Defining 50/50 shared care into law is of no benefit to those who profit from parental conflict, or those who profit from sexualy bigoted idealism, ingrained in the female I was having a conversation with.

  2. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Yes, there will be ongoing opposition and sabotage of equal shared care but the wave of its wisdom is rising. The article provides some interesting arguments about how equal shared care will advance the aims of feminism, and may appeal to self-interest where rational argument and evidence have failed.

  3. MurrayBacon says:

    The article mentions the much poorer economics of solo parents, compared to together parents.

    The elephant in the room is mental health, as solo parents are often solo due to inability to create and sustain efficient adult intimate relationships. (“Oh, I am putting my children ahead of my own relationships”, may be a cover for inability with respect for adult relationships, especially intimate.) This lack of adult relating is often accompanied by weakness in ability to relate to children. This does impact onto parenting skills, so that such parents often should not be left in sole care of young children, for long periods (to the mind of a young child) eg over 1 1/2 days. This consideration is a strong child protective argument in favour of shared parenting, if the parents refuse to live together.

    Although we should avoid stigmatising solo parents, the economic and parenting inefficiencies do remain in effect and do need to be rationally addressed, as suggested in the article.

    Certainly, a good place to start would be much increased funding for mental health treatment and social supports.

    Another aspect is due consideration, in the setting of social policies, to avoid use of fertility as an enforced meal ticket. This is difficult to achieve, as it is rather easy to use children as manipulation pawns.

    The catch cry of the children’s interests must be used, after carefully disentangling it from the mother’s and father’s interests….

    Another elephant in the room, is that a more balanced policy along the lines suggested would almost certainly balance incentives, so that women’s initiation of divorce would be more at the level of men’s, ie a marked reduction in the total divorce rate.

    This would greatly improve children’s outcomes, due to being much more able to benefit from frequent contact with both parents and the better economic efficiencies of being in a two parent family.

  4. Man X Norton says:

    Murray: Yep

  5. Paul says:

    Shared care.

    John Howard in 2005 broke away from the family court system used in NZ, UK, USA, AUST. This was as a result of a survey into male suicide where an overwhelming percentage of victims were men estranged from their children.

    This was ground breaking stuff in 2005

    The Dom Post published an article about 5cm square.

    Soon after a half page spread was published in the Dom Post about the reforms that the NZ Family Court were embarking on with a picture of Judge Boshier and comments about moving towards the Australian model. This was half a page but did not once talk of adopting shared care as a matter of course.

    A famous politician once said “if you control the press you can control the masses”. Who was that Austrian born politician with an odd moustache?

  6. DJ Ward says:

    Good balanced article from a women.
    Thankyou Jill Goldson.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11493083

    Look how damaging conflict is to the children.

  7. DJ Ward says:

    And again.
    Good article by Jill Goldson.
    Jealousy type behaviours are results.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11540514

  8. Downunder says:

    I don’t disagree with shared care, but the number of people who actually achieve this (in my experience) are a limited few.

    The end result is the majority of might-have-been-shared-care mothers making friends with their kids rather than engaging in a relationship with the father.

    This satisfies the needs of the woman, does little for child, and becomes a major failing in society.

  9. MurrayBacon says:

    I don’t disagree with shared care, but the number of people who actually achieve this (in my experience) are a limited few.

    I think that your comment is very true, for parents where one stoops down and uses familycaught$.

    You are forgetting that a substantial number of separating parents never go near to the familycaught$. These parents have a longer term focus, which also augers well for their parenting skills, as this is a long term exercise too.

    These parents have markedly better mental health in both parents and this factor suggests much better parenting skills.

    Unfortunately, the children whose parents who do use familycaught$, suffer doubly, loss of family resource through milking by legal workers and their parents poorer mental health and poorer parenting skills due to mental health problems. (Of course the mental health problems are often in both litigous parents, or at least in one of them.)

    Much suffering by children could be alleviated, by reducing the impacts of familycaught$ on separations.

  10. Downunder says:

    What you’re suggesting Murray, is that parents who do not use the family court are

    a) successful at shared parenting
    b) that the outcome is good for their children

    once again this is not my experience.

    Yes some are successful, others engage in an endless conflict, some cope by avoiding conflict, others by avoiding or ignoring the other, dealing with each other through third parties, etc, etc.

    There are lots of strategies that allow people to engage in shared parenting unsuccessfully. Separated ‘co-operation’ doesn’t automatically guarantee a successful outcome.

    Aside from that it allows children to engage in a new range of strategies with parents, that wouldn’t otherwise exist in the home environment.

    Yes, there have been studies of the failings of separation, i.e. the effect of the absent parent, and studies of the successes of ‘successful’ shared parenting situations, but I don not think this reflects the reality and outcomes of the majority of children living in a separated family environment.

  11. MurrayBacon says:

    Among the men’s movement, we tend to see the examples of parent’s where one or both refuse to negotiate. Certainly, familycaught$ mercilessly milks these parents for as much assets and borrowing capacity as they can mangle out of them.

    But it is also true that there are a large number of parents who do negotiate successfully between themselves. As a result, they are functional parents, they work fairly productively together, they don’t damage each other or waste the other’s assets. What they do for objects, they do also for their parenting relationship, they work together.

    Maybe not perfectly, but far more effectively than the parents who drag each other into the familycaught$, for a milking.

    Some of the non-fighters achieve it, by the surrender by one parent, or by totally decamping away from the parenting relationship. Certainly the familycaught$ incentivises such responses, by maniacly destroying hope.

    However, there is a large number of parents who parent separately, quite well. The best windows to ask about such parents won’t be talking only to separated fathers who are frustrated with being milked, or mothers either.

    Talk to schoolteachers, who will confirm that there are some parents who parent separately, quite effectively.

    The familycaught$ know little or nothing about these parents, so cannot pass on their lessons to their customer$. Why would they, it would reduce their ill gotten gains, or paramount intere$t? (I am being rude, Judge Trapski did know about parenting separately and those who succeed at it. He wanted to share these lessons, but was unsuccessful in getting other legal workers to follow him.)

    I have tried hard to learn from such parents, when I have had some contact. I try to pass on their lessons.

    But it is hard to have negotiations in good faith, against the backdrop of familycaught$ corrupted negotiations.

    This is why the existing familycaught$ institution and all of its existing staff have to go. They must be replaced by people with much less greed in their hearts and with human care and compassion for children.

  12. MurrayBacon says:

    #10 Downunder, I do see what you are talking about, with much pain.

    Although I am trying to give more attention to the positive ie the away from familycaught$ examples, I am greatly concerned about what goes on in familycaught$.

    The best way I can see (that we can do) to reduce the damage being done by familycaught$, is to try to show people that there are better ways of approaching these problems.

    However, when 1 party chooses short term gain, over their own long term welfare, then you have a recipe for family disaster (and legal worker’s unjust enrichment) exactly as you have said.

  13. Downunder says:

    There are some separated couples with only a dog between them that show more co-operation than some parents with children.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar