1 / 11

Shared parenting: messages from research

Shared parenting: messages from research. Professor Liz Trinder, Exeter University. Context – why ‘shared care’ now? Current legal position Key research messages 2 pros and 6 cons of a presumption Moving forward n.b SR/SC = 35%-65% time allocations, including 50/50. 1. Why now?.

sian
Download Presentation

Shared parenting: messages from research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Shared parenting: messages from research Professor Liz Trinder, Exeter University

  2. Context – why ‘shared care’ now? • Current legal position • Key research messages • 2 pros and 6 cons of a presumption • Moving forward • n.b SR/SC = 35%-65% time allocations, including 50/50

  3. 1. Why now? • Active campaigning from fathers groups, internationally • Equality discourse • Backdrop of (slowly) changing roles of fathers

  4. 2. Current legal position • Child’s welfare as the paramount consideration (CA89, s1(1)) • Contact presumption in practice, not statute • Courts traditionally reluctant to make SROs in high conflict cases • Though now SROs not ‘exceptional’ (Re W (SRO) [2009] EWCA Civ 370). • Australia – statutory ‘equal PR’ and ‘substantial time’ presumption • E&W private members bill (June/July)

  5. 3. Research: Who likes it?

  6. 3. Research: Child wellbeing

  7. Community (non-court): no difference in child wellbeing by type of arrangement [note reporter] • Poorer outcomes for shared care with: • fear/concerns (community) • rigid sustained arrangements, esp boys (mediated/litigated) • <3 years old with 1 night weekly, 3-4 years with SC (community) • Sustained rigid SC – more conflict, no greater father emotional availability four years on (mediated/litigated)

  8. “children entering rigid forms of sharing, usually via court-imposed pathways, had a troubled trajectory to begin with, and carried different burdens, of which unresponsive and unwanted care arrangements became yet another”. (Jenn McIntosh et al, 2010:76).

  9. 4. SC presumption – FOR • High rates of satisfaction for SC fathers, whether high or low conflict • Perception of fairness and equality (for fathers?)

  10. 4. SC presumption – AGAINST • SC - works well for a relatively small and distinctive group with specific material and relationship equipment (who don’t need a presumption) • Works poorly for risk, conflict and <4s • Shared care paradox – massive expansion in the ‘wrong’ families: • Australia community SC steady at c8-12% • 3% to 33% of litigated cases post-presumption • Time presumption trumps welfare paramountcy, in practice • Children’s wishes and feelings downgraded further • Addressing risk even harder

  11. 5. Ways forward • We know what works for children (and adults) and we ignore it • Quality of parenting/relationships unquestionably the key protective factor for children • Quantum is not. • What can we do to help parents focus on children’s needs, build a parental alliance? • Dispute resolution + psycho-educational and therapeutic interventions + child voice/support

More Related