Joint custody
Give kids of divorce what's best

By KENNETH BRASWELL and ROXANNE WRIGHT
First published: Sunday, June 12, 2005
Times Union - Perspective

For as long as there have been separations and divorces, there have been issues of child custody. When the family unit is intact, the issue of who spends what amount of time with the children is usually one of mutual agreement or circumstance. It is only when there is a parting of the ways that this becomes an issue of (often heated) debate. With the divorce rate continuing to skyrocket, the issue of how much time each parent is legally entitled to spend with his or her child is one that is more and more common.

For some parents, the anger that accompanies their separation causes them to exercise the last semblance of control they feel that they have in their relationship. Children are used as pawns by one or both of the parents to attempt to address their feelings of hurt or loss of control. Some other parents honestly seek to establish a custody relationship that they feel will be in the best interest of the children, and reject the notion that a joint custody could be that relationship.

The issue of "shared" or "equal" parenting is hotly debated -- so much so that we will refer to it as not as equal or shared, but as "optimal" parenting. We will call it "optimal" because all the research that has been done has indicated that the optimal situation regarding parenting for children is when, if there is no abuse involved, both parents maintain an appropriate, gender-based presence in the lives of their children. Optimal parenting would have both parents sharing custody on an equitable basis.

The question that we ponder though is whether this optimal parenting situation is one that can be effectively achieved through legislative intervention. One parallel can be drawn between what is being attempted with this issue and what was attempted by affirmative action legislation. As people of African heritage, it's easier for us to explain from this familiar perspective.

The goal of affirmative action legislation was to remedy the wrongs of prejudice and discrimination by taking affirmative steps, as opposed to leaving the situation to be resolved in its own time and by its own means.

Legislative intervention as far as requiring the hiring of certain "protected class" individuals was the admission that institutions and businesses knew the right thing to do, but for a number of reasons refused to do it anyway.

It was the recognition that decades of negative socialization regarding the abilities and capabilities of certain groups of people had resulted in a situation where these groups were grossly underrepresented in the work force and educational institutions. As a consequence of this underrepresentation, individuals who were members of these groups were being subject to adverse impacts in a major way. This situation, the legislation recognized, had to be addressed.

Similarly, there is a particular way in which we have been socialized about the role of a father. Men traditionally and historically have been thought of as the breadwinners in the family. The man's role was to provide for the family financially, while the mother was the caregiver.

In the event that the family unit was disrupted, his role was still seen as such, even as the picture of the American family, with two breadwinners, was redrawn. The same socialization that often gave men the advantage in the workplace disadvantaged them in the courtroom -- at least as far as child custody was concerned.

Why? As in the case of affirmative action, which by most accounts was a dismal failure, unless you can change a person's thinking, you cannot effectively change his actions. Or, as we believe, you can't change the mind unless you can change the heart.

Of course, there are those who would say that affirmative action resulted in an increase of women, blacks and other people of color within the workplace and in educational institutions. There are others who would say that affirmative action resulted in a minimal increase in those numbers and still did not change the environment once those groups got into the workplace. In fact, it was that environment that caused individuals not to stay for long.

Although you may have changed some of the more blatant expressions of prejudice and discrimination, the behavior of the majority group in those workplaces and educational institutions still created a hostile work environment. Further, there were always those organizations that could offer myriad reasons why the affirmative action goals could not be met.

The thinking that has evolved from the failure of affirmative action now has organizations and educational institutions considering, pursuing and managing diversity. What has been most effective for these organizations is having them recognize the business case for diversity and offering training that allows employees to examine any thinking that they might be holding onto that would prevent them from welcoming and appreciating diversity.

This diversity could be found in their co-workers or their customers. The business case for diversity clearly shows that it is in the best interest of the organization, if it is to survive, to use as many human resources as it can to serve its diverse customers.

It is precisely this that needs to happen around the issue of optimal parenting. The case for it has been made in innumerable research projects and papers. There just is no denying the fact that both parents play an invaluable role in the lives of their children -- beyond that of simply supplying material needs.

From a "business" perspective, the continued back and forth jostling that attends custody battles clogs the family court system calendar in a way that is truly unnecessary and unproductive.

What needs to happen now is that the family court system has to receive training that allows it to examine the thinking that results in some of its decisions. Decisions that would have the father's role be simply that of a casual visitor and financial provider reflect rigid and outdated thinking about the role of the father in the lives of their children.

Further, this training needs to allow judges, other members of the legal profession and parents the opportunity to hear from the children about the ways that legal custody decisions have an impact on their lives.

Equally as important, the parents need to be given the opportunity to examine their actions relative to child custody situations and to begin to heal the hurts that cause them to behave in ways that are counterproductive to the best interests and development of the child.

It is only then that this issue of optimal parenting stands the best chance of being successful.

Kenneth Braswell is the founder and executive director of Fathers Inc. in Latham (http://www.fathersinc.org). The organization encourages the positive involvement of fathers in their children's lives. Roxanne Wright is an adviser to the group and also is a consultant, trainer and facilitator.

All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2005, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.