Belgians favor shared parenting by majority (69,5%)

A majority of Belgians (69,5%) advocates joint physical care and alternating residence of the children as the best parenting arrangement after divorce
Belgium - Le Soir - Page 1 – Translation from French by P. Tromp - Monday, June 25, 2012

According to a Belgian public opinion survey by the Francophone magazine Filiatio, seven out of ten Belgians are in favor of equal accommodation or bilocation of the child between the homes of divorced parents. This type of care is far preferred above sole care arrangements for the children with one of the parents, combined with a “fortnightly weekend of access with the other parent " (15.2%) or the "5/9" – parenting arrangement with the children staying five days of every fortnight with one of the parents, and nine days of every fortnight with the other parent ( 5.2%).

A clear difference was observed between the two main Belgian language communities: with joint physical care, residence and custody being more popular with the Flemish (81.2%) than with the Francophones (54.5%). "The socio-economic factor must play a role”, analyses Prof. Yves-Henri Leleu, a specialist in family law at the University of Liège (ULg). “Accommodation costs of shared egalitarian accommodation or bilocation of the children with both parents obviously is more expensive: it takes two homes, two cars, etc.. Also the "northern countries" are more emancipated. Finally, there is certainly more family support services made available (crèches, nurseries ...) on the Flemish side. "

Divorce: joint physical custody is popular in Belgium
Belgium - Le Soir - DORZEE, HUGHES - Page 7 – Translation from French by P. Tromp - Monday, June 25, 2012

Families - A survey by « Filiatio » confirms the attractiveness for equally shared physical custody and care and alternating residence

When a couple separates who should take care of the children: mom, dad, or both? In Belgium the vast majority of the public is in favor of bilocation or "equally shared physical care and alternating residence" over the children after divorce.

According to a survey conducted by AEGIS / Deep Blue, on behalf of the magazine Filiatio (1), nearly seven out of ten respondents (69, 5%) favor an egalitarian accommodation of the children with both their parents after divorce.

This type of care is far preferred above sole care arrangements for the children with one of the parents, combined with a “fortnightly weekend of access with the other parent " (15.2%) or the "5/9" – parenting arrangement with the children staying five days a fortnight with one of the parents, and nine days a fortnight with the other parent (5.2%).

However, there is a clear difference between the Dutch north (Flanders) and the Francophone south (Wallonia) of Belgium: this mode of "custody" is praised more by the Flemish (81.2%) than by the Francophones (54.5%). The reasons? "The socio-economic factor must play a role”, analyses Prof. Yves-Henri Leleu, a specialist in family law at the University of Liège (ULg). “Accommodation costs of shared egalitarian accommodation or bilocation of the children with both parents obviously is more expensive: it takes two homes, two cars, etc.. Also the "northern countries" are more emancipated. Finally, there is certainly more family support services made available (crèches, nurseries ...) on the Flemish side. "

A view shared by the authors of the survey: "There is also greater professional support in family law in Flanders. And, conversely, greater resistance on the French side, "says Céline Lefevre from the magazine Filiatio.

"Avoiding Conflicts"
Either way, the results of this survey are surprising. They confirm the evolution of mentalities in Belgium and abroad (France, Spain, Italy ...). This evolution results from a new legislative framework - the Belgian Bilocation Act of September 14, 2006 – in which judges are encouraged to review egalitarian care, residence and housing of the children with both parents with "priority". Unless it is "manifestly contrary to the interests of the child."

 In order to decide, the judge takes into account different criteria (geographical distance, "the serious unavailability" of a parent, the age of the child, expressed non-interest in caring for the children or neglect of the children ...). "The law does not require or prescribe a generalization of the bilocation formula, but focuses on advocating an agreement and avoiding disputes. If neither of the parents approves for joint physical custody, the judge will not impose it automatically,"says Professor Leleu.

But the trend is there: the "equally shared care and residence" has gradually become accepted and entering the customs. While it has both its advantages (maintaining bonds with both parents equally; giving free time to both parents ...) and its disadvantages (instability and displacement, an obligation to "double" necessary accommodation facilities ...), as is shown in a study by the University of Liège (Casman, 2010).

 In addition, 'part time' parents also seem to have a typical profile: 30-40 years, higher educated, steady jobs with employers, having flexible working schedules, etc.

And in practice?
We do not have data to assess objectively the part of court decisions in favor of this type of care.  

"In general”, Céline Lefevre adds, ”it seems that the egalitarian accommodation or bilocation is under-represented in court decisions. So there would be a discrepancy between what Belgian people think and what is applied by judges."

"Each case is specific”, tempers Professor Leleu. “This type of accommodation is not applicable all the time. In some cases, it is counter-indicated (geographical distance from parents, tensions between the parents ...). In addition, it requires a lot of dialogue between the former spouses (medical follow-up, sports activities ...) "

The survey Filiatio has conducted also considered other aspects of family life (child report, the role of law, court delays ...), including mediation. Again the conclusion is clear: more than six out of ten Belgians (64%) are in favor of "imposing obligatory mediation to separating parents."

(1) This survey was conducted by telephone in March 2012 based on a representative sample of 500 people aged 18-70 years with a margin of error of 4.4%. (www.filiatio.be)

69.5%

This is the percentage of Belgians in favor of "equally shared physical care and residence". With strong differences between the Flemish (81.2%) and the French (54.5%) communities in Belgium.

Original articles in French:

• Une majorité de Belges préconise la garde alternée; Le Soir Belge - Page 1 - Lundi 25 juin 2012
• Divorce : la garde alternée a la cote; Le Soir Belge - DORZEE, HUGUES - Page 7 - Lundi 25 juin 2012

Résidence alternée en France en 2007

♦ La décision sur la résidence des enfants en France en 2007
Source: Le Divorce; Ministère de la Justice, République Francaise, Laure Chaussebourg, Valérie Carrasco, Aurélie Lermenier, SG-2S2M- SDSE – BDSE, pp. 21-23, Juin 2009

Globalement, en 2007, plus de trois quarts des enfants mineurs dont les parents divorcent vont résider chez leur mère, 8 % chez leur père et 15 % en alternance chez l’un et l’autre de leurs parents –tableau 3-. Plus le divorce est contentieux, moins la résidence alternée est fréquente. Sa part passe ainsi de 21,5 % pour le consentement mutuel à 11 % pour le divorce accepté et n’est plus que de 4 % dans les divorces pour faute. De plus, parmi les cas où la résidence est fixée exclusivement chez l’un des parents, plus le divorce est contentieux, plus la part de la résidence chez le père est importante par rapport à celle de la résidence chez la mère : ainsi la répartition entre une résidence chez le père et chez la mère est de 8 % - 92 % en cas de consentement mutuel, 10 % - 90 % en cas de divorce accepté et 12 % - 88 % en cas de divorce pour faute.

La taille de la fratrie influe peu sur le choix de la résidence, mais que quel que soit le type de divorce (par consentement mutuel, divorce accepté ou pour faute), la résidence alternée est toujours un peu plus fréquente pour les fratries de 2 enfants mineurs, et un peu moins pour celles d’au moins 3 enfants mineurs.

L’âge de l’enfant est par contre déterminant concernant le choix de la résidence –graphique 7 & 8-. A tout âge, la résidence chez la mère est largement majoritaire, mais sa part diminue quand l’âge de l’enfant augmente et passe de 94 % pour les enfants de moins d’un an à 74 % pour ceux de 17 ans. Inversement, la part de la résidence chez le père augmente avec l’âge et passe de 1 % pour les moins d’un an à 16 % pour les enfants de 17 ans. Quant à la résidence alternée, sa part augmente régulièrement de 0 à 9 ans, passant de 5 % à 18 %, puis diminue de 10 à 17 ans, pour se retrouver à 9 %.

Quand la résidence est fixée chez le père ou en alternance, la situation la plus fréquente est l’absence de contribution –tableau 4-. Tous divorces confondus, il n'y a aucune contribution à l'entretien pour les trois quarts des enfants résidant chez leur père et 77 % de ceux qui résident en alternance. Quand une contribution est versée pour des enfants résidant en alternance, c'est pratiquement toujours par le père, cette situation étant plus fréquente en cas de divorce pour faute (37 %) que dans les divorces acceptés (27 %) ou les divorces par consentement mutuel (21 %).

En revanche, quand l’enfant réside chez sa mère, le père verse une contribution à l'entretien pour 84 % des enfants. Dans les consentements mutuels, les pères versent une contribution pour 87 % des enfants qui résident chez leur mère contre 74 % des pères qui ont divorcé par un "autre type de divorce" (un divorce fondé sur la séparation des époux le plus souvent).

4. Belgian Law on favouring an evenly divided residence and housing of children of separated parents (15 september 2006)

18 JULY 2006 - Law favouring an evenly divided residence and housing of the child of separated parents and governing the obliged enforcement concerning the residence of the child [1]

Belgian Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees; FEDERAL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES JUSTICE; page 43971; Publication: 2006-09-04

Unauthorised translation from Dutch to English by Peter Tromp MsC (FatherCare Knowledge Centre Europe). This translation can be copied and published freely provided that all credits including translation credits are included.

The Belgian Law favouring the evenly divided housing and residence of children after parental separation was published in the Belgian Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees on 4 September 2006. It came into force on 15 September 2006.

ALBERT II, King of the Belgians,

To all that are now and will hereafter be, Our Salutations.

The Chambers have adopted and We ratify which follows:

CHAPTER I. - General provision

Article 1. This law regulates a matter as meant in Article 78 of the Constitution.

CHAPTER II. - Modifications of the Civil Code

Art. 2. Article 374 of the Civil Code, modified by the law of 13 April 1995, of which the existing text will form § 1, is completed with § 2, sounding:

« § 2. In case the parents do not live together and their dispute is made pending at the court, the agreement concerning the housing and residence of the children will be homologised by the court, unless the agreement is obviously contrary with the interest of the child.

For lack of agreement, in case of joint parental legal custody and authority, the court examines on the request of at least one of the parents with primacy the possibility of fixing the housing and residence of the child in an even manner between the parents.

In case the court is of the opinion however that evenly divided residence and housing, is not the most appropriate solution, she can decide however to fix an unequally divided stay.

In any case the court will judge with a sentence explicitly covering the particular reasons, and taking into account the concrete circumstances of the matter and the interests of the children and the parents. »

Art. 3. Article 387bis of the same statute book, inserted by the law of 13 April 1995, is completed with the following articlemembers:

« Undiminished Article 1734 of the judicial statute book, the court attempts to reconcile the parties. She supplies all useful information concerning the judicial process to them, in particular concerning the usefulness to appeal to in the seventh part of the judicial statute book stipulating reconciliation and mediation. If she infers that an alignment is possible, she can order the suspension of procedings, in order to offer the possibility to the parties to be sufficiently informed about this and start up the reconciliation and mediation process. The duration of the suspension can be no longer than one month.

The court can order, even by its own direct discretion, a preceding measure to examine the demand or progress set on request or she can provisionally regulate the situation of parties for a period which she sets.

In case such a demand or progress initially is made pending at the youth court, and with the exception of agreement by all parties and the solicitor of the King, the youth court will decides on a provisional regulation. The matter can be again examined during a later meeting, on a date which has to be officially fixed in the sentence, within a period which can not exceed one year and notwithstanding a new courtsession called for on a previous date, such as is the matter in the next articlemember:

The matter remains to be registered on the bar of the youth court till the children, to whom the dispute is related, are emancipated or have reached the age of legal adulthood. In case of new elements, the matter can be again brought for the court by conclusion or by a written request to be laid down that be forwarded to the graft.

Article 730, § 2, a), of the judicial statute book does not apply on these matters. »

Art. 4. In the same statute book Article 387ter is inserted, stating:

« Article 387ter.

§ 1. In case one of the parents refuses to carry out the courts decisions concerning the housing and residence of the children or the right to personal contact, the matter can be brought again before the competent judge. Contrary to Article 569, 5, of the judicial statute book, the competent judge is the one who had previously ordered the courtdecision that is not carried out, unless the matter in the meantime was made pending at another court, in which case the demand or progress is then to be brought forward to that court.

The judge pronounces sentence with primacy above all other matters.

Except in case of squat necessity, he is at the discretion amongst others:

- perform new research measures, such as a social inquiry or an expert research;

- undertake an attempt to propitiation;

- propose to the parties to make use of Article 387bis relating to reconciliation and mediation.

He can take new decisions concerning the legal parental authority and custody or the housing and residence of the child.

Notwithstanding criminal action he can allow the party falling victim to denial of the decision meant in the first paragraph to appeal for coercive measures. He stipulates the nature of these measures and the closer rules concerning the exercise of it, taking into account the interest of the child and indicate, if he considers this necessary, the persons who are authorised to accompany the Court bailiff for the enforcement of his decision.

The judge can pronounce a penalty payment to guarantee that the decision will be observed and, in that hypothese, state that for the enforcement of the penalty payment, Article 1412 of the judicial statute book applies.

The decision is by law feasible at stock.

§ 2. This Article applies also when the rights of parties are regulated by an agreement such as has been provided in Article 1288 of the judicial statute book. In this case, and undiminished § 3, the matter is made pending at the court by means of a petition on objection.

§ 3. In case of emergency, and notwithstanding the possibility of appealing to Article 584 of the judicial statute book, authorisation can be requested by unilateral petition to appeal for coercive measures as meant in § 1. Article 1026 up to 1034 of the judicial statute book do apply. The requesting party needs to confirm the petition with all useful documentation showing the refusing party to be effectively urged to comply with his/her obligations and that she has resisted himself/herself against enforcement of the decision.

The registration of the petition is free of charge. The petition is to be added in the courts file leading to the decision which was not observed, unless the matter in the meantime was made pending at another court.

§ 4. This Article does not affect and diminish the international provisions to which Belgium is committed in the field of the international abduction of children. »

CHAPTER III. - Modifications of the judicial statute book

Art. 5. Article 1412, first paragraph, of the judicial statute book, modified by the laws of 31 March 1987 and of 14 January 1993, is completed as follows:

« 3 when the judge has applied Article 387ter, second articlemember, of the Civil Code. »

To declare this to be the law, orders that she will be kept under the countries seal and will be announced in the Belgian Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees.

Given at Brussels, 18 July 2006.

ALBERT

By Royal Permission:

The Minister of Justice,

Mrs. L. ONKELINX

Sealed with the countries seal:

The Minister of Justice,

Mrs. L. ONKELINX

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Parliamentary reports and notes:

Common Chamber of Members of Parliament.

Regular meetings 2004-2005. Parliamentary documents.

- Lawproposal, no. 51-1673/001 of 17 March 2005.

- Amendments, no. 51-1673/002 up to 006.

Regular meetings 2005-2006. Parliamentary documents.

- Amendments, no. 51-01673/007 up to 13.

- Report on behalf of the sub-committee, no. 51-1673/14

- Amendments, nrs. 51-1673/15 up to 17.

- Report on behalf of the commission, no. 51-1673/18.

- Text adopted by the commission, no. 51-1673/19.

- Amendments, no. 51-1673/20.

- Text adopted at plenary meeting and send over to the senate, no. 51-1673/21.

Integrated report.

- Meeting of 30 March 2006.

Senate.

Parliamentary pieces.

- Lawproposal evocated by the senate, no. 3-1645/1.

- Amendments, no. 3-1645/2 up to 3.

- Report on behalf of the commission, no. 3-1645/4.

- Text improved by the commission, no. 3-1645/5.

- Amendments, no. 31645/6.

- Decision not to amend, no. 31645/7.

Parliamentary dealings:

8 June 2006.

3. Equal Parenting European Chart

Present Status of Shared Care and Parenting Legislation after Parental Separation in Europe

By Peter Tromp MsC (*), November 7, 2006

The present dominant European family law legislation and family court practice as to court ordered parenting arrangements after parental separation, is still a combination of joint legal custody legislation combined with sole physical custody court practices giving children in practice up to the sole care and residency of one parent, i.e. the custodial parent who is in allmost all cases the mother, while the noncustodial parent is made nonresidential to the children and further put at a distance and excluded from his/her own children by:

- highly limited access or contact arrangements for noncustodial parents (normally no more then one weekend every two weeks, making serious parenting impossible)

- a deliberate policy of non-intervention when courtordered access arrangements are broken by the custodial parent, usually the mother

- severe repressive legislation aimed at criminalising noncustodial parents who do not accept being excluded from their children (stalking legislation, DV legislation, abduction legislation, restrictive injunction orders, etc.)

- fiscal and welfare policies and practices geared to favouring and supporting children only when living with one half of their separated families, often combined with extraction of money from the officially designated non-resident parent for support of the "family with children" which the state itself has imposed upon that family

This legislative situation and its court practices have resulted in the Netherlands, for example, in a situation where now more then half a million of Dutch children are growing up completely without any contact with their natural father – i.e. one in every six Dutch children - while half a million of more Dutch children have contact with their nonresidential parents reduced to the minimum of one weekend every fourtnight. Every year 29,000 new Dutch children of divorce get fully excluded from their noncustodial parents this way, while another 29.000 get to see their fathers only occasionally once every two weeks. As a result 1.1 million of a total of 3.5 million Dutch children, i.e. 31% of all Dutch children, have little to no contact with and care from their fathers and their fathers families. To compare with, the USA, being at the forefront of the situation where Europe is also heading to, now already has 40% of all children growing up completely fatherless (Source: Newsweek figures from January 2006).

This situation of fatherless children after parental separation is prevalent in most European Union countries, including the new East European members. The incidence of fatherlessness tends to be still somewhat lower in Southern European countries and higher in Northern European countries.

As a result of the above family law and family court policies, through a lower birthrate and the well-documented desastrous effects they have on children's lives growing up excluded from half of their families, more and more policy makers are seeing the writing on the wall. Their reaction so far - and this can be observed as a generalised reaction to many policy situations today - is to make largely cosmetic adjustments to the present system which will take an inordinate time to have any effect, if ever, through the introduction of tentative shared parenting principles without parental rights. These types of policy already have a proven track record, in the jurisdictions they have been introduced in, of failure to make a mark on the problem.

Looking at the present trend in family law reform in EU countries (Europe)

The present general European trend within family law reform in European countries is however most definitely pointing strongly in the direction of moving away from sole physical custody and care legislation and court practices towards joint and equal physical custody and care legislation and recognizing the importance of keeping both parents and extended families actively involved in children's lives after parental separation. Let me give you brief summaries by country on the present state of Shared Parenting Legislation in European countries in 2006:

1. Italy now has a mix of joint legal custody and elements of joint physical custody since a law change that came into effect on 16th March 2006.

2. France has a mix of joint legal custody and elements of joint physical custody that came into effect in 2002.

3. Belgium on the initiative of its Socialist Party now has implemented presumptive 50/50 joint physical custody legislation (effective bilocation of the children) after parental separation in both its House of Commons and Senate which came into effect when it was formally published by the Belgian Federal Government on the 4th of September 2006.

4. The Netherlands had new law proposals running in parliament in 2004-2006 (the Luchtenveld-law-reform-proposals). The Luchtenveld proposals were originally designed to support joint physical custody and care by embracing the principle of postseparation equal parenting, but in the end they did so only on the principle of it without also factually sufficiently implementing it in the practice of the law, i.e. they ended up being a watered down version of joint physical custody, leaving every room for courts to continue sole custody orders in practice. (The window-dressing that the Luchtenveld proposals ended up in is a very usual practice within Dutch polderpolitics: that is Dutch politics often say to solve a matter by intend while in the fact and practice of the matter they then willingly do not.) As such the Luchtenveld proposals were no exception on that and were considered fully insufficient and inadequate, but they were at least embracing "equal parenting" on principle. They were however voted in the Dutch Senate last summer in June 2006 after they had allready been passed - and window-dressed - by the Dutch House of Commons.

What lies ahead now is a future Dutch parliamentary debate next December 2006 on the Donner proposals for parenting after divorce. These proposals however are even worse in trying to set back the clock in Dutch family law reform towards recodification of sole custody and care (i.e. standardly handing over the children of divorce for care and custody to onely one of its parents - usually its mother - with the exclusion of the other parent - usually its father - by non-reinforced court access and contact orders.) These desastrous Donner-proposals are - as seem to be standard practice in Dutch politics - again accompanied by window-dressing proposals. This time by the introduction of the socalled "parenting plans" in the Donner law proposals. The introduced "parenting plans" however, cannot cover up for the fact that in the Donner lawproposals one of the parents is diminished into a second class parent only given non-enforced access and contact with the children of usually one weekend every two weeks, while the children are handed over by the courts like a CD-rack for care and custody to the other parent. In this scheme "Parenting Plans", suggesting some sort of postdivorce shared care and custody, are used as a window-dressing cover up, because the fact of the matter in the Donner law proposals is that the law makes sure that there is nothing equal in it, or nothing substantial to share in it for that matter.

The tragedy of Dutch family law reform of the last decades is its complete incompetence. Time and again Dutch politics do try to keep both parents after parental separation involved in their children's lives, BUT IN NAME AND INTENT ONLY, while in the facts of the matter and the laws they being implemented time and again it is proved that they turn over the children to only one of their parents to the exclusion of the other parent.

5. Norway now has sole physical custody but its Minister of Justice has announced a complete family law review based on the principles of presumptive joint physical custody for 2007.

6. Ireland has, since the advent of Parental Equality (the Irish lobby group associated with Liam O'Gogain) circa. 1993, been considering the possibility of a change to laws of joint physical custody - wich gives some gauge of the lack of seriousness with which such laws are being considered.

7. In Germany a professional intervention model called the Cochem model, based on principles of shared parenting, is gathering strength. In this model parents are only allowed in the family courts after they have filed a shared parenting plan they both agree to. The German Minister of Justice announced a future family law reform proposal this February (2006) in which elements of the Cochem model of multidsciplinary cour orchestrated intervention will be added to the law. Which elements is as yet unknown.

8. Malta also has some form of shared parenting presumption.

9. Spain has introduced a new shared parenting law in mid-2005 which is regarded as wholly inadequate by Spanish family rights lobbyists. Government officials and professionals on their own initiative are attempting to introduce policies reintegrating alienated children with their alienated parents and there is a vigorous movement for change.

10. The UK under present Labour government has as of yet no effective shared parenting laws in existence. However the Conservative Party has adopted Equal Parenting Family Law Reform as part of its election programm for the 2005 elections. Also some judicially-motivated efforts to introduce norms of shared parenting do exist, in spite of the family-hostile parameters of the present law and fiscal framework.

Other jurisdictions:

- Australia has just passed a Shared Parenting Bill in the Senate this week of the window dressing sort - Australia is in fact a good example of the sort of jurisdiction which passes pretend laws which have no effect repeatedly, each time claiming that the present law proposal will be better than the last, and all the while children continue to grow up in a family-hostile environment. The same pattern can be observed in places like the UK, the Netherlands and Spain.

- The USA has several states having implemented shared parinting legislation. NYS/USA also has Shared Parenting Legislation that is being heavily debated right now.

(*) Peter Tromp is a Dutch child psychologist and coördinator of the European Platform Familyrights 4 Europe and FatherCare Knowledge Centre Europe.

2. Equal Parenting World Chart

1. Equal Parenting Definition and Concepts

Definitions and concepts

A. CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS:

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY
Physical custody designates the amount of time a child shares with each parent. Parents with Joint physical custody share responsibility for the child's time within a more equitable schedule.

JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY
What school will the child attend? What religion will the child practice? A parent with Sole legal custody has authority to make all major decisions about the child. Parents with Joint legal custody share the authority to make major decisions about their child.

SOLE PHYSICAL CUSTODY
A parent with Sole physical custody has responsibility for the child the significant majority of the time.

SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY

B. PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS:

SHARED PARENTING

EQUAL PARENTING

CO-PARENTING
Technically, co-parenting exists with any parenting arrangement, regardless of its formal designation. In whatever way each parent is involved in raising the child, the parents co-parent. Most effective co-parenting arrangements contain the following characteristic dynamics between the parents: cooperation, communication, compromise, and consistency.

PARALLEL PARENTING
While meaningful co-parenting can only be carried out by parents in a working, functional, parental relationship, parallel parenting is more characteristic of parents in a dysfunctional relationship dynamic. Parallel parenting manifests when there is an insufficient degree of cooperation, communication, compromise, or consistency to carry out co-parenting. Children in parallel parenting arrangements often experience heightened anxiety during phone calls from the other parent and during transfers between parents. Minimizing verbal and physical contact between the parents can help.

VISITATION AND ACCESS
This is generally considered to be the time that the child shares with the non-custodial or nonresidential parent. Rather than viewing the separated family arrangements in traditional legal terms, it is more valid, psychologically speaking, for physical custody to be conceptualized from the point of view of the child. We know that, with rare exceptions, it is in the child's best interest to have regular and continuing contact with both parents. This is to say the child's rights have to supersede the parent's rights. It is the child's right to have access to both parents. It is the parent's obligation and responsibility to be available and to care for the child.

C. PARENTING PLAN
Parenting plans refer to all of the above concepts of a child sharing time with or living with each parent at different times. In a written parenting plan, sentences begin with, "The child will share time with (or, live with) each parent according to the following schedule:" rather than, "The Father/Mother has visitation on alternate weekends." Even if the child sees one parent only once a year for a few days, the child is still sharing time and living with that parent during that time period.

D. TYPES OF PARENTS AFTER DISPARENTING

CUSTODIAL PARENT
The time sharing plan should take into consideration what that child has become accustomed to, regarding the parenting style and arrangement during the time of the intact relationship. If a child is to be with one parent significantly more of the time than with the other parent (for example, when the two parents live a considerable distance from one another), we suggest replacing the traditional term of "custodial parent" with the less emotionally charged concept of "the child's primary residence" and "the child's secondary residence." Of course, if the child shares time fairly equitably between the parents, then there is no need to designate either parent's residence with such title.

NONCUSTODIAL PARENT

NONRESIDENTIAL PARENT

ESTRANGED PARENT

E. TYPES OF FAMILIES AFTER PARENTAL SEPARATION

CO-PARENT FAMILIES

ONEPARENT FAMILIES

BROKEN FAMILIES

LONEPARENT FAMILIES

Content

About this blog

This is a work in progress blog. It is about making a state of the art world chart on family law reform, petitions and political analysis towards equal parenting after parental separation. Please help us by mailing your information on the family law situation on equal parenting in your country?

Fathercare Knowledge Centre Europe

Annotated Bibliography on Post-divorce Parenting

Annotated Bibliography on Post-divorce Parenting



Barnes, Stephanie N. , Student of Law, Idaho, USA, Strengthening the Father-Child Relationship through a Joint Custody Presumption (1999), Family Law Symposium: Children and Divorce: Custody and Support Issues - Part 1: Comment, Willamette Law Review, Vol. 35.3
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/willr35&div=29&id=&page=

Solove, Ronald L., Judge, Ohio, USA, Judges on judging: Confessions of a Judicial Activist (1993), Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 54:797
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=54+Ohio+St.+L.J.+797&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=86effb1435d90ec7d9170106693a5dd5

"When I asked him the usual question that we ask all children of divorce - if you had three wishes, what would they be? - he said, ‘I want to die.’ Startled at this unexpected response, I said, ‘Why?  What would happen if you died?’ ‘If I were dead,’ the little boy said in a somber tone, ‘I’d be in heaven. My dad would be there. My mom would be there.  And we’d live in the same house.’ "

Meyer, David D., Professor of Law, Illinois, USA, The constitutional rights of non-custodial parents (2006), Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 35:1461-1494
http://lawarchive.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v34n04_cc3_meyer_final.pdf

Wardle, Lynn D., <wardlel@law.byu.edu>, Professor of Law, Utah, USA, The Disintegration of Families and Children’s Right to Their Parents (2011), Presented at the Caribbean Regional Conference of the International Society of Family Law, "The Legal and Social Consequences of the Disintegration and Reconstitution of Families", Nassau, The Bahamas, March 18-19, 2011
http://www.law2.byu.edu/page/categories/marriage_family/past_conferences/mar2011/drafts/Dr%20110317%20Disintegra%20of%20Family%20and%20Children's%20Right%20to%20Their%20Parents.pdf

Haas, Trish Oleksa, Mediator, Michigan, USA, Child Custody Determinations in Michigan: Not in the Best Interest of Children or Parents (2004), Comment, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 2003-2004, 81
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/udetmr81&div=34&id=&page=

Haas,Trish Oleksa, Mediator, Michigan, USA, Mediating Custody and Parenting Time Disputes (2005), The ADR Newsletter, Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Vol 12, No.1, Page 4–6, February 2005
http://www.michbar.org/adr/pdfs/Feb05.pdf

Joint Custody Discourages Divorce

Joint Custody Discourages Divorce

Washington Post - Sunday, 25 January 1998, Page CO5

---

Divorce rates have dropped dramatically in those states that promote joint custody, says the January 25th issue of the Washington Post. Richard Morin's article cites research in nineteen states, by Richard Kuhn of the Childrens' Rights Council and John Guidubaldi of Kent State University.

Overall, divorce rates declined nearly four times faster in high-joint custody states, compared with states where joint custody is relatively rare. One big reason is that joint custody "removes the capacity for one spouse to hurt the other by denying participation in raising the children."

Source: Joint Custody Discourages Divorce, says The Washington Post : http://www.fathermag.com/news/2779-WashPost80125.shtml

Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the USA

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/library/spca/docs/Child%20Custody%20and%20Divorce%20Rates.pdf

Richard Kuhn, Children's Rights Council, Washington, D.C.

John Guidubaldi, D.Ed. , John Carroll University (Cleveland, OH) and Kent State University (Kent, OH)

11th Annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council October 23-26, 1997. Washington, D.C.

Copyright 1997, Children's Rights Council. Reproduction with attribution is permitted.

Abstract

This paper compares divorce rate trends in the United States in states that encourage joint physical custody (shared parenting) with those in states that favor sole custody. States with high levels of joint physical custody awards (over 30%) in 1989 and 1990 have shown significantly greater declines in divorce rates in following years through 1995, compared with other states. Divorce rates declined nearly four times faster in high joint custody states, compared with states where joint physical custody is rare. As a result, the states with high levels of joint custody now have significantly lower divorce rates on average than other states. States that favored sole custody also had more divorces involving children. These findings indicate that public policies promoting sole custody may be contributing to the high divorce rate. Both social and economic factors are considered to explain these results.

Introduction

Empirical evidence shows that children raised by a divorced single parent are significantly more likely than average to have problems in school, run away from home, develop drug dependency, or experience other serious problems (e.g., Amato and Keith, 1991; Guidubaldi, Cleminshaw, Perry, and McLoughlin,1983; Hetherington and Cox, 1982). Although many single parent families are created as a result of unwed motherhood, far more are the result of divorce. Of 18.6 million children in the United States living with only one parent, approximately two thirds are with divorced or separated parents (Census, 1994). This paper investigates the relationship between child custody policies and changes in the U.S. divorce rate, using data from a 19 state sample collected by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control.

Custody Policies

States differ widely in their policies toward joint custody. Many states routinely grant joint legal custody, which gives the non-residential parent the right to participate in major decisions about the children's upbringing and to view certain records. Joint legal custody does not affect the child's living arrangements. Often it is granted with the traditional residence arrangement, in which the child lives with one parent but visits the other parent four days per month.

Less commonly, joint physical custody is awarded. With joint physical custody (also called shared parenting), the child lives with both parents, often on an alternating week basis. Joint physical custody is usually defined as a schedule where the child has at least a 30/70 time share between parents, although 50/50 arrangements are a common form of shared parenting (Ricci, 1981). Some form of joint custody is a preference or presumption in a few states, while in some other states with no preferred custody option, judges have favorable attitudes toward joint custody and frequently grant it. For the 19 states in the NCHS sample, the average rate of joint physical custody awards in 1990 was 15.7%, and in two states joint physical custody was awarded in nearly half of the cases.

State policies on joint custody have changed significantly in the past 25 years. Because of maternal preference policies, joint custody was unusual before 1970, although divorced families in times past sometimes worked out arrangements that were equivalent to modern joint custody (Ricci, 1981).

For example, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered a case in 1934 in which the division of time between parents was equivalent to joint physical custody (McCann v. McCann), although the term joint custody had not yet been invented. As maternal preference laws were found to violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law in the 1960s and 1970s (Roth, 1976), joint custody began to increase. Although much has been written about links between "no-fault'" divorce laws and the divorce rate, there has been little discussion of the effect of child custody policies on the divorce rate.

Custody Policies and the Divorce Rate

It might be argued that joint custody could encourage divorce, by making divorce "easier." On the other hand, widespread acceptance of joint physical custody might be expected to reduce the divorce rate, because joint custody makes it difficult for an angry parent to hurt the other by taking away the children, or to relocate and thereby eliminate interaction with the other parent. In addition, an economic argument has been advanced that high levels of child support associated with sole custody may encourage divorce, because custody of children represents an asset for the custodial parent to the extent that child support payments exceed the cost of raising a child (Muhtaseb, 1995). Because joint physical custody results in a more equal division of parenting time, child support payments may be lower, although there are still payments unless both parents have the same income. States that more frequently award joint physical custody may thus see a decline in the divorce rate. To date, no study has provided empirical evidence to support either hypothesis about the effect of joint custody policies on the divorce rate.

Data

State divorce rates and other vital statistics are maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The divorce rate measure used is the number of divorces per thousand population. A 1995 NCHS report (Clarke, 1995) gives data on physical custody awards for 19 participating states for the years 1989 and 1990. This NCHS report is the first of its kind to report figures for physical custody of children. Values given are percentages of sole custody father, sole custody mother, and joint custody awards. Figures for 1989 and 1990 are given, separated by a "/". In some cases the total may be slightly less than 100% because awards to persons other than mother or father (generally from 0 to 2% in the NCHS report) are not included in Table 1. More recent data are not yet available. Table 1 shows the physical custody awards for these states. The definition of joint physical custody used in the NCHS study is a minimum of 30% time share with each parent (Clarke, 1996). Figures for 1989 and 1990 are similar, although the percentages for joint custody are slightly higher in 1990 for those states reporting both years. For five states, 1989 figures were not available; these are indicated as "NA". States were divided into categories of High (above 30%), Medium (10% to 30%), or Low (below 10%) levels of joint physical custody awards, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Physical Custody Awarded (percent), 1989/1990
State	Father	Mother	Joint	Category
Montana	8.1/8.4	47.8/46.4	43.3/44.0	High
Kansas	7.8/6.8	50.1/47.2	39.5/43.6
Connecticut	5.3/5.3	58.7/58.1	35.8/36.4
Idaho	9.8/10.4	57.9/55.3	31.9/33.2
Rhode Island	NA/5.4	NA/62.2	NA/31.7
Alaska	NA/14.2	NA/63.1	NA/19.5	Medium
Vermont	NA/10.6	NA/71.4	NA/17.1
Illinois	8.7/9.2	77.4/75.4	13.7/15.1
Wyoming	11.0/9.5	73.0/74.4	14.1/15.1
Missouri	10.4/11.0	74.4/73.1	14.0/14.8
Oregon	10.7/12.6	74.1/71.7	14.9/14.0
Michigan	9.5/11.2	76.4/73.9	12.5/14.2
Virginia	NA/11.6	NA/70.9	NA/13.8
Pennsylvania	10.5/10.0	78.6/76.7	9.4/10.1	Low
Utah	10.5/9.7	79.3/81.1	10.1/9.0
Tennessee	11.1/11.3	78.9/78.9	8.1/8.6
Alabama	9.7/10.7	79.5/80.2	9.3/8.6
New Hampshire	12.2/11.0	79.9/80.4	6.6/7.1
Nebraska	NA/12.2	NA/81.3	NA/4.1
Source: Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 9 (March 22, 1995), National Center for Health Statistics.

Findings and Discussion

Divorce rates for 1989, 1990 and 1991 were compared with 1993, 1994 and 1995 levels, as shown in Table 2. Comparisons between basal values of 1989/1990/1991 and values for 1993/1994/1995 are used rather than absolute values in order to factor out differences that may be unrelated to custody policies. For example, states differ in their ethnic, religious, and racial compositions, factors that can affect the divorce rate. The effect of custody policies can be more precisely isolated by using differences across time, just as the effect of a medication is isolated by comparing before and after treatment values for subjects whose initial (and final) values for blood pressure, heart rate, or other measures may be significantly different. Initial values and values four years later for the state groups are shown in Table 3. Table 3 also shows 1980 divorce rate averages for the three groups. Joint custody had begun to emerge as a custody option in 1980, although its adoption into state policies occurred at different points. Rate changes between 1980 and 1990, therefore, are likely to contain some effects of policies regarding joint custody. Note that the High and Medium joint custody groups had very similar divorce rate declines between 1980 and 1994 (by approximately 1.1 and 1.2 per thousand respectively), while the states with low levels of joint custody had a decline of only 0.4 per thousand between 1980 and 1994.

Table 2. Divorce Rates and Four-year Difference in Rates
	-- Divorce Rates by Year---						Four Year Differences
State	1989	1990	1991	1993	1994	1995	93-89	94-90	95-91	Average Change
Montana	5.1	5.1	5.4	5.1	4.9	4.8	0	-.2	-.6
Kansas	5.0	5.1	5.5	4.8	4.7	4.2	-.2	-.4	-1.3
Connecticut	3.7	3.5	3.5	3.1	2.8	2.9	-.6	-.7	-.6
Idaho	6.3	6.4	6.3	6.3	6.2	5.8	0	-.2	-.5
Rhode Island	3.6	3.7	3.3	3.4	3.2	3.7	-.2	-.5	+.4	-.37
Alaska	6.3	5.7	6.4	5.3	5.5	5.0	-1.0	-.2	-1.4
Vermont	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.8	4.0	4.8	+.3	-.4	+.2
Illinois	4.0	4.0	4.0	3.7	3.7	3.3	-.3	-.3	-.7
Wyoming	6.6	6.9	7.0	6.5	6.5	6.7	-.1	-.4	-.3
Missouri	4.9	5.0	5.1	5.1	5.0	5.0	+.2	0	-.1
Oregon	5.4	5.5	5.2	5.3	5.3	4.8	-.1	-.2	-.4
Michigan	4.4	4.4	4.3	4.1	4.1	4.2	-.3	-.3	-.1
Virginia	4.2	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.6	4.4	+.3	+.2	-.1	-.23
Pennsylvania	3.2	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	+.1	-.1	0
Utah	4.8	5.2	4.8	4.8	4.7	4.6	0	-.5	-.2
Tennessee	6.6	6.6	6.5	6.5	6.6	6.3	-.1	0	-.2
Alabama	6.2	6.3	6.5	6.5	6.2	6.1	+.3	-.1	-.4
New Hampshire	4.5	4.5	4.3	4.5	4.4	4.2	0	-.1	.1
Nebraska	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.9	4.0	3.8	.1	-.1	-.2	-.10
Sources: Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 13 (October 23, 1995), National Center for Health Statistics. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993.

As can be seen from Table 2 and Table 3, the states with high levels of joint custody had significantly lower divorce rates four years later. States with higher levels of joint custody had an average four-year decline in the divorce rate approximately double that for states with medium levels of joint custody. On a percentage basis, between 1989 and 1994 the rate in the High joint custody group declined by 8%, in the Medium group by 4%, and in the Low group by less than 1%.

Table 3. Changes in Divorce Rates Over Time
Joint Custody Level	---------- Year ------------
	1980	1989	1990	1993	1994
High	5.42	4.74	4.76	4.54	4.36
Medium	6.06	5.04	5.04	4.94	4.84
Low	5.25	4.88	5.02	4.92	4.87

Figure 1 shows joint custody awards and divorce rate changes for the 19-state NCHS sample. States are ordered by level of joint custody awards in 1990. As joint custody awards increase, states in general have greater declines in divorce rates. Figure 2 summarizes the changes in divorce rates for states in the three joint custody categories. Statistical analysis shows that the correlation between joint physical custody and reduced divorce is almost certainly not due to chance fluctuation. The statistical measure used is a correlation of the average of joint custody awards per state in 1989 and 1990 with the average decline in divorce rate from 1989 through 1991 to 1993 through 1995 (i.e., difference between the average of 1993, 1994, and 1995 rates and the average of 1989, 1990, and 1991 rates.) This is the average of the "Joint" column of Table 1 correlated with the difference between the average of 1993 to 1995 rates and 1989 to 1991 rates in the "Divorce Rates by Year" column of Table 2. There is less than a five percent probability that this correlation is due to chance (correlation coefficient r = .47, p < .05). (Note: Wisconsin reported numbers in 1989 but not in 1990, so it was not included in this analysis. However, separate calculations show that inclusion of the Wisconsin data does not affect the statistical significance of the results.)

One possible explanation to consider for the difference in divorce rates between high and low joint custody states is an effect resulting from changes in marriage rates. If marriage rates per thousand population increase, then divorce rates per thousand population in following years can increase if marriages fail at the same rate. Similarly, divorce rates can decrease during a particular period if marriage rates decreased in previous years, because fewer marriages were created. Thus it is important to look at whether the greater decline in divorce rates in high joint custody states during the early 1990s results from a decrease in marriage rates during the early 1980s. Table 4 shows the change in marriage rates between 1980 and 1985, a decade before the period under study.

Table 4. Change in Marriage Rates
State	Marriage Rates			Change Group per 1000	Change percent
	1980	1985	per 1000
Montana	10.6	8.7	-1.9
Kansas	10.5	9.5	-1.0
Connecticut	8.4	8.6	+ .2
Idaho	14.2	12.2	-2.0
Rhode Island	7.9	8.3	+ .4	-.86	-2.7%
Alaska	13.3	11.8	-1.5
Vermont	10.2	10.4	+ .2
Illinois	9.6	8.5	-1.1
Wyoming	14.6	10.6	-4.0
Missouri	11.1	9.8	-1.3
Oregon	8.7	8.3	- .4
Michigan	9.4	8.7	- .7
Virginia	11.3	11.7	+ .4	-1.05	-9.6%
Pennsylvania	7.9	7.5	- .4
Utah	11.6	10.6	-1.0
Tennessee	12.9	11.5	-1.4
Alabama	12.6	11.5	-1.1
New Hampshire	10.0	11.4	+1.4
Nebraska	9.1	7.9	-1.2	-1.21	-6.3%
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States.

If the greater decline in divorce rates for High joint custody states results from declining marriage rates in previous years, then we would expect marriage rates for these states to show larger decreases in the early 1980s than the Low joint custody states. As can be seen from Table 4, the reverse is true. The low joint custody states actually had greater declines in marriage rates during the early 1980s. If marriages continued to fail at the same rate during the decade, then these states should also show greater declines in divorce rates during the early 1990s. The fact that they did not suggests that other factors may be at work. It is not reasonable to conclude that thedecrease in divorce rates associated with joint custody is simply a result of declines in marriage rates. A second explanation proposed here considers both social and economic factors.

Before the 1960s, social pressures and legal requirements made divorce relatively uncommon in the U.S. Divorce typically required grounds severe enough that a reasonable person could not expect the marriage to continue: adultery, desertion, abuse, insanity or imprisonment of a spouse. With a few exceptions, states adopted unilateral "no-fault'" divorce laws in the 1960s and 1970s, which allowed a spouse to abandon a marriage without traditional grounds. Divorce was actually encouraged by some as an antidote to boredom, or for other reasons that might have been considered frivolous a generation before. About 80% of U.S. divorces today result from the unilateral decision of one spouse, rather than the joint decision of both (Gallagher, 1996), with the spouse who files for divorce first often having an advantage.

If one investigates the simple question, "who initiates divorce," we find from the Monthly Vital Statistics Report May 21, 1991 (NCHS, 1991), that from 1975 to 1988, in families with children present, wives file for divorce in approximately 2/3 of the cases each year. In 1975, 71.4% of the cases were filed by women, and in 1988, 65% were filed by women. While these statistics alone do not compel a conclusion that women anticipate advantages to being single, rather than remaining in the marriage, they do raise that reasonable hypothesis. If women can anticipate a clear gender bias in the courts regarding custody, they can expect to be the primary residential parent for the children. If they can anticipate enforcement of financial child support by the courts, they can expect a high probability of support monies without the need to account for their expenditures. Clearly they can also anticipate maintaining the marital residence, receiving half of all marital property, and gaining total freedom to establish new social relationships. Weighing these gains against the alternative of remaining in an unhappy marriage may result in a seductive enticement to obtain a divorce, rather than to resolve problems and remain married.

States that favor sole custody in divorce may thus expect to see more divorce than states that encourage joint custody. On a practical level, joint physical custody makes it less likely that a parent can move to another city to eliminate interaction with the other parent. Because both parents provide for the child directly, child support payments may be somewhat lower with joint custody, reducing financial motives for divorce. Perhaps most significant, joint custody also removes the capacity for one spouse to hurt the other by denying participation in raising the children. The correlation between joint custody and reduced divorce may have a simple explanation. If a parent considering a divorce is told by an attorney that a judge will probably not permit him or her to relocate with the children, and that the other parent will continue to be involved, he or she may decide that it is easier to work out problems and remain married.

Table 5. Percentage of Divorces Involving Children, 1989/1990
State	1989	1990	1989 Average	1990 Average
Montana	55.1	55.3	54.9	54.4
Kansas	55.5	55.2
Connecticut	49.1	49.5
Idaho	55.4	54.8
Rhode Island	59.5	57.3
Alaska	52.4	49.1	54.4	53.3
Vermont	60.2	57.4
Illinois	55.6	55.5
Wyoming	58.0	56.8
Missouri	52.0	54.2
Oregon	52.4	51.8
Michigan	55.9	53.7
Virginia	49.3	48.7
Pennsylvania	57.3	56.8	57.0	57.3
Utah	62.2	63.2
Tennessee	49.9	49.9
Alabama	51.8	51.1
New Hampshire	57.7	59.4
Nebraska	62.9	63.6
Source: Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 9 (March 22, 1995), National Center for Health Statistics.

Put simply, when divorce becomes a less attractive alternative to marriage, we should expect less divorce. As can be seen from the findings, this appears to be happening in states with higher levels of joint custody. If sole custody reduces incentives to continue marriage, then we should also expect states that favor sole custody to have more divorces involving children. As can be seen from Table 5, the low joint/high sole custody states also had more divorces involving children, although the difference is not statistically significant.

Summary and Conclusions

The evidence reported in this paper indicates that widespread acceptance of joint physical custody will not increase the divorce rate, and may in fact reduce divorce. States whose family law policies - either by statute or through judicial practice - encourage joint custody have shown a much greater decline in their divorce rates than those that favor sole custody.

Both social and economic factors may explain the differences between divorce rates. Sole custody allows one spouse to relocate easily and to hurt the other by taking away the children. Potentially higher child support payments with sole custody may provide an economic motive for divorce as well. With joint physical custody, both social and economic motives for divorce are reduced, so parents considering divorce may simply decide it is easier to remain married. States whose policies result in more joint custody and less sole custody should thus see a reduction in divorce rates. The findings reported in this paper indicate that this is in fact happening.

Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to Sally C. Clarke for discussions on the NCHS data.

References

• Amato, P.R., and Keith, B. Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin (1991) 100:26-46.
• Census Bureau, U.S. Dept of Commerce, Current Population Reports, Series P20-484, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1994, and earlier reports.
• Clarke, S.C., Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1989 and 1990. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 9, 1995. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics.
• Clarke, S.C., personal communication, 1996.
• Gallagher, Maggie. The Abolition of Marriage, Regnery Press, 1996.
• Guidubaldi, J., Cleminshaw, H.K.,Perry, J.D., and McLoughlin, C.S. The impact of parental divorce on children: Report of the nationwide NASP study. School Psychology Review (1983) 12:300-23.
• Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M., and Cox, R. Effects of divorce on parents and children. In Nontraditional families. M.E. Lamb, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982.
• McLanahan, S. and Sandefur, G., Growing Up with a Single Parent, Harvard University Press, 1994.
• Majed R. Muhtaseb, An option pricing theory explanation of the increase in the divorce rate, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 2 No.6, (1995).
• NCHS, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 39, (May 21, 1991), National Center for Health Statistics.
• NCHS, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 13 (October 23, 1995), National Center for Health Statistics.
• NCHS, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 13 (October 23, 1995), National Center for Health Statistics.
• Ricci, I., Mom's House, Dad's House. Macmillan, 1981.
• Roth, A. The tender years presumption in child custody disputes. Journal of Family Law, Vol. 15, 1976. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993.

Authors
Richard Kuhn is a research evaluator for the Children’s Rights Council.
John Guidubaldi is professor of psychology at John Carroll University and Kent State University, Ohio. He served as commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare, is past president of the National Association of School Psychologists, and is a research evaluator for the Children’s Rights Council.