»

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Sharing Custody

"Do what's best for the kids."

Everyone says that during a divorce new york. But determining "what's best" often becomes a mud-slinging tug-of-war where no one wins - especially the children.

Shared parenting plans attempt to diffuse the fighting, putting the children first. Both parents get joint legal and physical custody. The terms "custodial parent" and "visiting parent" no longer apply.

Supporters say joint custody new york helps fight the "fading father" syndrome, keeping dads emotionally and financially involved.

It makes sense. In a perfect world, children should grow up in a loving, supportive environment with both parents. And in a perfect world, both parents should share equal responsibilities, eradicating "traditional" gender roles where the father's the sole breadwinner and the mother's the sole caregiver.

But in the real world of divorce, the rational, level-headed thinking that joint custody often requires doesn't always seem possible. And that's the biggest barrier.


It's not easy for an ex-husband to drop the kids off at the home of his former wife, who he says lives with a new boyfriend every other month. It's equally difficult for an ex-wife to encourage her kids to see their dad after he walked out on them. And one woman complains that shared parenting keeps her from moving up in her career, since she can't take her dream job across the country without giving up her son. She questions adhering to the rules when, in her opinion, the father ignores the children and doesn't pay any child support.

But even the courts are increasingly favoring joint custody new york, instead of choosing one parent over the other. Recently a divorced couple in Boston made headlines when an Appeals Court ruled that the mother and father would rotate school years, so that one parent gets the child during the school week and the other parent gets the child for the weekends for one year. Then the parents will reverse the schedule the next year. Both parents had asked for sole custody.

0 comments: