It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that, here at GlennSacks.com and Fathers & Families, we’re all about equally shared parenting post divorce or separation. That stems from the well-established fact that children of two-parent families do better than those of single-parent families. As far back as 1994, sociologist David Popenoe could say that,
[I]n three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single-parent and stepfamilies.
So equally-shared parenting is, above all, an effort to maintain two parents in a child’s life after a divorce or separation has occurred. The concept acknowledges what we know to be true about what promotes child wellbeing.
So when an article flickered across my screen entitled “Study finds shared parenting detrimental to children,” I was immediately interested. Think about the ears on a German Shepherd when he hears an intruder and you get an idea of my level of interest. Here’s the article itself (Adelaide Now, 5/21/10).
It’s a piece out of Australia and refers to a study done by Dr. Alan Campbell of the University of South Australia. I urge you to click on the link and read the article. What do you learn from it? Well, it seems to say that (a) there were changes to the Family Law of Australia in 2006 that encouraged equally shared parenting, (b) Dr. Campbell did a study of children inquiring into the effects of shared parenting on child wellbeing, (c) the results tell us something about the new law and (d) the results show that shared parenting is detrimental to children.
However, you might be surprised to learn that only (a) above is true. When I read the article, I emailed Dr. Campbell asking to see his research, he promptly and courteously responded, and provided both the original report of his research and a short article about it that he’d published. Having read both, I have to say that I find his results fascinating and will post an entire piece on them soon. Although his sample size is extremely small, his findings suggest some important things about how family courts should conduct themselves in custody matters. So, more on that later.
For now, suffice it to say that the article that claimed that a study had found shared parenting detrimental to children was simply false. In fact, Dr. Campbell’s study had nothing to do with shared parenting whatsoever. Indeed, of the children he interviewed for his study, at most two and possibly none, had parents in equally-shared parenting relationships. Also, it was reported in 2008 about a study that had been done prior to that and so in no way reflected anything about the changes to the Family Law Act enacted by the Howard government in 2006.
Here’s a brief sketch of what Dr. Campbell did: he interviewed 16 children between the ages of seven and 17 whose parents were either divorced or separated. Interviewers asked the children many questions, but the intention of the study was to find out their thoughts and opinions on the decision-making process in child custody matters. His findings include (a) parents and courts don’t tend to ask children what they prefer (b) children have opinions about what’s right and fair, (c) children would like to be consulted about their desires, thoughts, ideas, etc., (d) children have a strong desire to be fair to both parents, and (e) children think families can decide issues of custody better than can court-appointed experts.
If anyone sees anything in that about shared parenting being detrimental to children, let me know.
In fact, the Adelaide Now piece comes with a historical and political context. It comes at a time when anti-father forces are desperately trying to roll back the slight improvements to fathers’ rights made by the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act. The Adelaide Now article is part of that effort and, given its astonishing lack of intellectual honesty, provides a strong indication of how little the anti-dad crowd has on its side.
5 users commented in " Aussie Paper Misrepresents Study in Order to Oppose Shared Parenting "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThank you for exposing these lunatics in the press. Your summary of the emotion driving the article was precise and accurate:
“[The article’s] astonishing lack of intellectual honesty provides a strong indication of how little the anti-dad crowd has on its side.”
Here, here. I’m amazed that newspapers such as this one and also The Australian (where Caroline Overington writes regular pieces like that above) have not realized a significant % of men have stopped reading. In an age where newspaper readership is in dramatic decline they can ill afford to deliver the editorials over to misandric hate groups under a false belief it is what the masses want… even fair-minded women will depart the ranks of readers.
“Two parent families are preferable to single parent families and step-families”. That means where two biological parents are living together, and not that two biological parents should have equal time with a child after separation – DUH!. A typical misrepresentation of research. Two-Home children who are used as Ping-Pongs suffer most as it creates uncertainty, instability, and lack of consistent care in their lives. Such children grow up with a lack of emotional attachment and a disability to form and maintain lasting relationships. But then the needs and development of children are of no account under `Shared Parenting’ laws, they are mere possessions to be divided up with the house, care, furniture etc.
Dear Glenn Sack,
If one of parent had a new family for him/her good, why children need to traveling every week to see new mum or dad? Do children need time to study in the school for their life? I heard a child told me that “thank my mum and dad were fight for divorce when I had the tests of VCE, and I did not get the good results.” Children have not got a Family Rights when their parent were diveroced. The 50% of diveroce rate in Australia, that means 50% of children will need travl evey week to see someone which they may never like to see which real worry them. When children have the mood to do their homework? The Family Law Act 1975 should reform for Australians children. If one parent has a affair, the Family Court should protect children first. There is not Mum/Dad worry about children’s feeling, but they are worry if not share care of children. If Mum/Dad real care of their children, they should be not left their children. I believed the share care only stress to children.
Mr.Sacks,
You asked to hear from anyone who sees shared parenting detrimental to children’s well being, as put forth in the article by Dr. Allen Campbell.
Even though what you posted of his research was limited, I actually was able to interpret it as he intended.
For starters, I understand the logic, and need for the new law. I think that it serves the majority. What Dr. Campbell was speaking about, had to do with those rare cases that do end up in court in an ugly custody battle.
He states, ” ..shared custody arrangements made without court intervention were often positive.”
Thats when everyone is playing nice, good people, just not good for each other and mature enough to do whats best for their kids.
I can tell you FOR A FACT, that there ARE situations where shared custody is NOT in the best interest of the kids. The situation I’m speaking of involves my brother and his ex. My brother absolutely should NOT have custody of their kids. People with undiagnosed personality disorders. I’m not a doctor but I would bet money my brother has a Narcissitic Personality Disorder, which includes bullying, and psychotic behavior which has led to extreme parental alienation againt the mother. All of which triggered by being left by his spouse, a HUGE blow to a narcissist ego, sparking a mission to “make her life a living hell.”. And what better weapon to use than her own kids.
A narcissists has a wonderful gift of charm. It’s how they reel their victims in, and it works equally well on law enforcement as well as judges. They can pass a psych exam and woo a therapist into thinking he hung the moon, SHE must be the crazy one.
But it’s not until you talk to the kids that you find out what sort of inappropriate, damaging to their self esteem, inconceivable actions, that he’s been doing to achieve his goal, and because he’s “mental” he doesn’t even comprehend the devistating long-term effects he’s causing. He has tunnel vision. This is my brother i’m talking about, I know what he’s done to her and the kids, I’m not making this up, it actually breaks my heart.
What Dr. Campbell is trying to point out is that this cannot be blindly applied to ALL cases.
He says, “.. considerable” concern by academics that the law change would put some children into dangerous family situations.”
Did you catch the “some” part??
Your rebuttal does a disservice to those “some” that get betrayed by the system when they are not heard.
Do some research of your own. I certainly have, that’s why I can easily see and totally agree with what Dr. Campbell had to say.
Mr. Sacks,
Don’t you, as an advocate and reporter of equality for father’s rights feel you have any sort of social responsibility to tell the facts and not HYPES and HALF-TRUTHS?
Because when you post half-stories with minimal facts on a subject supposedly near and dear, you discredit yourself, except to those that prefer half the truth because the whole truth might be a bit of a zinger, and it zaps all the fun out of the hype.
I happen to be a mom that shares parenting with my ex. It was always my goal to make sure our kids still had us both. However, like my story I posted about my brother, there are circumstances where, if we women, OR men (goes both ways) had known we were procreating with a lunitic, we would have grabbed that condom. Hindsight, right. Nevertheless, I have breaking news, NOT ALL FATHERS MAKE GOOD DADS, some men don’t deserve the privilege of raising a child because it’s obvious they will F that up too. I am an advocate for a mother and a father sharing that responsibility, BUT, ahead of that I am an advocate for doing whats in the best interest of a child.
And you know how I do that??
I INFORM MYSELF BY DOING RESEARCH!!!
The new law reform does encourage shared parenting, but its much more than that. Here’s a snippit for you:
“The inquiry did not recommend a presumption that children should spend equal time with each parent. Rather, it recommended that the ‘best interests’ of the child should stay as the main criterion for deciding how children should be cared for after separation. But it did say that a number of changes should be made to the law. It recommended two rebuttable presumptions. One was in favour of equal shared parental responsibility. The other was against equal shared parental responsibility in cases where there were reasonable grounds to believe one parent had perpetrated family violence or there were concerns about child abuse.”
Here’s where you can read ALL about it. Knowledge is your power.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/media.html
Leave A Reply