"I want my kid 50% of the time. The law says that I should have my kids half the time."
Take a log off the fire.
We need to talk about this.
Upon separating clients, particularly fathers, come in with a lot of gusto, chesty to some degree, demanding that they have the child or children 50% of the time right off the bat after separation.
With older children, absent any reason to the contrary, this can be done relatively easily with cooperative ex-spouses. Even with an uncooperative partner gradual increased access can be established through the courts.
Young children (particularly from ages 0-3) require a different approach, that clients do not often understand or comprehend. Some even view it as unfair.
Recently, at a paper was presented at the Inaugural Conference of the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Melbourne Chapter on the issue of overnight access for children under the age of 3. The AFCC paper looked at a number of different studies on the issue in order to create a consensus on infant overnights. Upon reviewing the data and the relevant studies the AFCC found patterns that overlapped from study to study, particularly:
Most importantly, the paper determined seven patterns of consensus related to infant overnight visits. Most important to Family Law lawyers is the following:
"Relevant studies to date substantiate caution about high frequency overnight time schedules in the 0-3 year period, particularly when the child's security with a parent is unformed, or parents cannot agree how to share care of the child. Equally true, clinical and theoretical cautions against any overnight care in healthy family circumstances have not been supported."
So what does this mean?
Firstly, access parents of infant age children need to manage expectations. There is a high likelihood that you will not be granted a court order that provides you with extended overnight parenting of an infant. The judges are provided with this literature and they read it. Routinely in Alberta Provincial Court Judicial Dispute Resolutions judges remind clients and counsel that literature exists that it is not in the best interests of the child to have overnights as an infant. The ping-pong game of access is not in the best interests of the child.
Ah, yes there it is the theme of all child related issues that are dealt with by the courts. The only factor that is important in the eyes of a judge. The best interests of the child. The studies the judges rely on, such as these, establish what empirical data says is in the best interests of the child. Any litigant will have a tough time convincing a judge that his or her case ought to go against the grain of these studies.
Co-operative co-parenting will be important to establish to the court when looking to develop an overnight schedule. Healthy family circumstances may help you, but again with a child under the age of three it is an uphill battle. Parents can establish an access plan that has frequent contact without overnight visits.
I acted for a mother with an eight month old this past year. The father wanted 50/50 shared parenting of the child and took the matter to court. The presiding Court of Queen's Bench Justice referred to the father's proposed access plan as being something "that must have been scripted in Anaheim."
It was a fantasy, and as the Court of Queen's Bench Justice put it:
"...the only thing missing was Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, and Donald Duck."
Take a log off the fire.
We need to talk about this.
Upon separating clients, particularly fathers, come in with a lot of gusto, chesty to some degree, demanding that they have the child or children 50% of the time right off the bat after separation.
With older children, absent any reason to the contrary, this can be done relatively easily with cooperative ex-spouses. Even with an uncooperative partner gradual increased access can be established through the courts.
Young children (particularly from ages 0-3) require a different approach, that clients do not often understand or comprehend. Some even view it as unfair.
Recently, at a paper was presented at the Inaugural Conference of the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Melbourne Chapter on the issue of overnight access for children under the age of 3. The AFCC paper looked at a number of different studies on the issue in order to create a consensus on infant overnights. Upon reviewing the data and the relevant studies the AFCC found patterns that overlapped from study to study, particularly:
- Prohibitions against ANY or ALL overnights for infants have neither been found nor implied by any existing studies;
- No study has yet established developmental benefits of frequent shared overnights for infants under the age of three;
- Three studies have shown that by the time children are four years old, frequent shared time is a less complex proposition, and may have benefits in situations where the parents are co-operative;
- No study has found evidence to suggest that infant outcomes in various overnight arrangements are attributable to a parent's gender.
Most importantly, the paper determined seven patterns of consensus related to infant overnight visits. Most important to Family Law lawyers is the following:
"Relevant studies to date substantiate caution about high frequency overnight time schedules in the 0-3 year period, particularly when the child's security with a parent is unformed, or parents cannot agree how to share care of the child. Equally true, clinical and theoretical cautions against any overnight care in healthy family circumstances have not been supported."
So what does this mean?
Firstly, access parents of infant age children need to manage expectations. There is a high likelihood that you will not be granted a court order that provides you with extended overnight parenting of an infant. The judges are provided with this literature and they read it. Routinely in Alberta Provincial Court Judicial Dispute Resolutions judges remind clients and counsel that literature exists that it is not in the best interests of the child to have overnights as an infant. The ping-pong game of access is not in the best interests of the child.
Ah, yes there it is the theme of all child related issues that are dealt with by the courts. The only factor that is important in the eyes of a judge. The best interests of the child. The studies the judges rely on, such as these, establish what empirical data says is in the best interests of the child. Any litigant will have a tough time convincing a judge that his or her case ought to go against the grain of these studies.
Co-operative co-parenting will be important to establish to the court when looking to develop an overnight schedule. Healthy family circumstances may help you, but again with a child under the age of three it is an uphill battle. Parents can establish an access plan that has frequent contact without overnight visits.
I acted for a mother with an eight month old this past year. The father wanted 50/50 shared parenting of the child and took the matter to court. The presiding Court of Queen's Bench Justice referred to the father's proposed access plan as being something "that must have been scripted in Anaheim."
It was a fantasy, and as the Court of Queen's Bench Justice put it:
"...the only thing missing was Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, and Donald Duck."