By Edward Kruk, Ph.D
(Dr. Edward Kruk's website.)
Journal of Family
Therapy, 15 (3), 235-261 (Association for Family Therapy/ Blackwell Publishers).
"Cooperative shared parenting" refers to a post-separation parenting
arrangement that attempts to approximate as closely as possible the parent-child
relationships in the original two-parent home, in which both parents have not only equal
rights with respect to their children's welfare and upbringing, but also active
responsibilities within the daily routines of their children's care and development.1 It also constitutes a situation where parents have not only accepted
the termination of their marital relationship, but taken on the responsibility for
separating their previous marital conflicts from their ongoing parental responsibilities.
As the living arrangement most closely resembling the majority of pre-divorce families,
and coinciding with emerging models of marriage and parenthood, shared parenting is
regarded by many as the healthiest and most desireable arrangement for the majority of
post-divorce families (Folberg & Graham, 1981; Irving et al, 1984). The two most
salient factors associated with positive outcomes of divorce for children and parents are
the maintenance of meaningful, active and ongoing relationships between children and both
of their parents, and the parents' ability to minimise conflict and cooperate with each
other in regard to parenting and decision-making. Cooperative shared parenting may thus be
the key to ameliorating the negative impact of divorce on all family members.
Mediation, as an alternative method of dispute resolution, has considerable (and as yet
largely untapped) potential in establishing shared parenting as the norm, rather than the
exception, for divorced families. For the most part, however, mediators have avoided
directly promoting and facilitating this post-divorce arrangement, for diverse reasons.
Indiscriminately recommending shared parenting for those who are extremely poor candidates
is highly problematic: there are clear contraindications to shared parenting, including
cases of child abuse, neglect, or exploitation, the physical or psychological incapacity
of a parent, chronic alcoholism or drug addiction, or a stated disinterest in caring for
the children; highly conflictual couples may never be able to exclude their marital
conflicts from their ongoing negotiations in regard to parenting; abused spouses may
continue fear potential violence within a co-parenting structure. While these point to the
need for careful screening of potential candidates, the notion of establishing shared
parenting as an ideal is based upon the assumption that in the majority of cases, both
parents are capable and loving caregivers and have at least the potential to minimise
their conflict and cooperate with respect to their parenting responsibilities.
In addition, the promotion of shared parenting in mediation is antithetical to the
neutral stance adopted by many mediators (Roberts, S., 1988; Roberts, M., 1988); such a
therapeutic/interventionist approach, it is argued, reduces client self-determination and
may result in a lack of commitment to the mediated agreement, and undermines the parties'
ability to to undertake any necessary renegotiation of parenting arrangements by
themselves (Roberts, S., 1988). This paper seeks to demonstrate how a
therapeutic/interventionist model can in fact bolster the parents' ability to negotiate
and make informed decisions, enhance their communication and problem-solving skills, and
ultimately strengthen the durability of negotiated agreements. In addition, the model
offers clients the benefit of interventions designed to enhance their negotiations and
construct agreements that promote the principles of shared parental responsibility and
authority which underlie the Children Act 1989, and thus maintain the welfare
of the child at the forefront of parental negotiations. Mainstream neutral approaches have
been particularly lacking in this regard (Bernard et al, 1984; Saposnek, 1983).
Research on Shared Parenting
A number of recent North American studies have supported shared parenting as a viable
and optimal structural arrangement for families after divorce. Ahrons (1981) concluded
that shared parenting in fact constitutes a wide variety of parenting arrangements and
relationships among families. Leupnitz (1982) interviewed children as well as parents, and
compared sole maternal, sole paternal and shared parenting arrangements, concluding that
children are more satisfied with shared rather than with sole parenting arrangements.
Shiller (1984) found that divorce causes less trauma and dislocation to children whose
parents opt for shared parenting and that these children appeared to be more comfortable
with the status quo, with a more realistic image of what the future will bring.
Wolchik et al (1985) discovered that children in shared parenting homes report a
significantly higher number of positive experiences than children in sole parenting
arrangements. In Britain, Lund (1987) compared children and parents in
"single-parent/father absent" families with those in "conflicted
co-parenting" and "harmonious co-parenting" families and, utilising
independent teacher ratings in addition to interviews with both parents and their
children, concluded that children functioned best in harmonious co-parenting families and
least well in single-parent families.
Irving et al's (1984) study of shared parenting utilised a large data base and a
longitudinal design. Contrary to expectations, they found that shared parenting is a
realistic consideration for all economic groups, an idea that was obscured by the
preponderance of middle- and upper-class families in earlier studies. Also, parents with
initial doubts and some reluctance about opting for co-parenting were able to negotiate
shared parenting plans, and reported positive long-term outcomes. It was not necessary for
co-parents to be favourably disposed to each other for the arrangement to work, although
most respondents reported a change in their feelings toward their former spouses,
typically becoming more positive; nor was it necessary for parents to have had a high
level of cooperation in sharing parental responsibilities during the marriage. In almost
all cases, the initial consideration of the possibility of a shared parenting relationship
was first raised by one of the parents rather than by solicitors, mediators, family
therapists, or other professionals. Overall, nearly 90% of co-parents were in favour of
the arrangement. The authors concluded that shared parenting is a viable option for a
range of divorcing couples, but not for everyone. Good predictors of outcome success
included a commitment to parenting, reasonable communication skills, flexibility, the
ability to separate previous marital conflicts from matters concerning the children, and
good faith with regard to agreements made; conversely, intense and continuing conflict,
weak commitment to active parenting, and irrational hope of reconciliation were all
predictors of failure.
An important caveat must be made in interpreting the results of studies of shared
parenting as most involve parents who have independently chosen to make such arrangements.
Brotsky et al (1988), however, reported on a study of a pilot mediation service in
California designed to promote shared parenting in cases where at least one of the parties
was opposed to the arrangement, in a jurisdiction where mandatory mediation is intended to
promote shared parenting. When educated about children's needs in divorce and informed of
the range of parenting options open to them, 80% of participants opted for a shared
parenting arrangement. In a one-year follow-up of these mediated arrangements, the authors
found that shared parenting provided stability (93%), parental satisfaction (68%), valuing
of the other spouse (97%), and comfort for the children in relation to both parents (82%).
When compared with those in sole parenting arrangements, children in shared parenting
homes, like their parents, were reported to be functioning significantly better in all
areas.
Primary caretaker presumption. While research studies have provided substantial
empirical support for shared parenting as a desireable post-divorce option for families, a
number of concerns have been expressed among a number of U.S. legal scholars. Fineman
(1988) and Polikoff (1982), arguing in favour of a legal "primary caretaker"
presumption, question the degree to which shared parenting actually reflects pre-divorce
family structures, and caution against an uncritical acceptance of the position that women
and men make identical contributions to parenting during marriage.
It may be questioned, however, whether sole parenting after divorce is in fact more
reflective of pre-divorce family structures than shared parenting. While mothers generally
assume the lion's share of responsibility for child care within two-parent families
(although there exists a heterogeneity of parenting roles within families, including
greater sharing of care than previously), in the majority of cases both parents form close
and salient attachment bonds with their children and remain uniquely influential in their
development (Lewis, 1986; Lamb, 1986). This is reflected after divorce, in sole parenting
families, in children's pervasive longing for their absent fathers, despite varying
amounts of actual parenting involvement by fathers during the marriage (Kruk, 1991).
Continuing hostility between spouses. Another issue of debate regarding shared
parenting concerns the ex-spouses' ability to cooperate: it is argued that shared
parenting can be calamitous if parents are unwilling or unable to cooperate and their
relationship is characterised by high conflict, which typically attends divorce. As Folberg & Graham (1981) point out, however, it is more likely the adversarial nature
of the legal system, when extended to the issue of post-divorce parenting, that polarises
parents and exascerbates hostilities; to the extent that the legal system casts divorcing
parents in the role of enemies and expects them to be unable to cooperate, a
self-fulfilling prophecy is created; legal processes not only exascerbate parental
conflict, they often create an atmosphere of hostility in cases where relatively amicable
negotiation may have taken place (Kruk, 1991).
Whether the parents are able to isolate their previous marital conflicts from their
continuing roles as parents may be the critical issue in the "parental
cooperation" debate. There is evidence that shared parenting provides an incentive
for cooperation; what often begins as a "front", an appearance of minimal
conflict in the children's presence, becomes in time a "normal" pattern of
relating, a self-fulfilling prophecy (Irving et al, 1984). When neither parent feels
threatened with the possibility of loss, each is in a healthier position for cooperation
(Calvin, 1981). Shared parenting, in providing for a combination of "time off"
and enhanced involvement in child-care, helps to overcome the problem of mothers feeling
overwhelmed by sole responsibility for children and fathers feeling excluded from their
children's lives (Folberg & Graham, 1981).
Lack of continuity in children's routine. Another important concern about shared
parenting is that it may be disruptive and confusing for children to have two homes, where
they encounter two different lifestyles and value systems; shared parenting, it is
suggested, inherently creates an unstable, impermanent condition for children. In
rebuttal, it has been shown that children have strong attachment bonds and relationships
with both parents, and show remarkable tenacity in continuing these under a variety of
conditions (Richards, 1982). Shared parenting exposes children to two lifestyles and two
points of view, offering a larger array of positive characteristics to model, and a
greater variety of cognitive and social stimulation; while sole parenting can sever a
child's ties with an entire set of relatives, shared parenting permits the child's support
group to expand (Folberg & Graham, 1981). In providing for active parenting by two
nurturing figures, shared parenting may contribute to a breakdown of
gender-differentiated character structures in children
(Richards, 1982). Thus, while critics of shared parenting point to the child's
vulnerability and need for a consistent and predictable world, proponents emphasize the
child's resilience and need for emotional support and stimulation from diverse sources.
Proponents of shared parenting have stated their "case" from both the
perspective of parents and children. It is argued that most sole parenting mothers feel
their children largely overburden and imprison them, and mothers become physically and
emotionally exhausted, as well as socially isolated (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980;
Sev'er, 1992); it is not surprising, then, that in studies of shared parenting, mothers
reported that the greatest advantage of the arrangement is the sharing of care for their
children and relief from the sole responsibility of parenting (Nehls & Morgenbesser,
1980). Whereas non-custodial fathers are effectively disqualified as active caretakers of
their children (Kruk, 1991), co-parenting fathers report that the greatest advantage of
sharing care is the opportunity to maintain an active and meaningful role in their
children's lives, in "normal" day-to-day living situations (Greif, 1979).
Finally, shared parenting spares children the disruption and feeling of rejection
following the departure of one parent; it ensures the preservation of attachment bonds
with both parents in a continuous, secure and protected relationship (Folberg &
Graham, 1981).
Mediation and Shared Parenting
It is now generally accepted that it is not divorce per se that results in the
difficulties experienced by separated family members; rather, certain critical mediating
factors stand between separation and post-divorce outcome for family members (Wallerstein
& Kelly, 1980; Hetherington et al, 1978; Hess & Camara, 1979). These include the
extent to which both of the parents and their children are able to maintain meaningful
relationships, the level to which the parents are able to support each other in their
continuing parental roles, and the extent to which informal social networks and formal
judicial, educational, and social welfare institutions are supportive in regard to both.
It may be argued that there is an implicit ethical responsibility for mediators and
therapists to promote parenting agreements and influence settlements that take these
factors into account. Therapist-mediators with expertise in the expected effects of
divorce on children and parents can be instrumental in helping parents to recognise the
potential psychological, social and economic consequences of divorce and, on that
foundation, promote arrangements conducive to children maintaining meaningful, positive
post-divorce relationships with both parents within a non-conflictual atmosphere.
One of the most debated aspects of the role of mediators is the extent to which they
should actively shape the outcome of the agreement--should they assume a neutral or a
therapeutic/interventionist role? Neutral mediators seek to avoid influencing the outcome
of the negotiations and accept any decision the parents agree on that is not obviously
harmful to either. The therapeutic/interventionist mediator, on the other hand, is
actively involved in shaping an agreement that includes those factors known to contribute
to positive post-divorce outcomes.
In my view, mediation needs to include a much stronger educative and advocacy
component, and to assume an affirmative stance in promoting and facilitating the
development of cooperative shared parenting arrangements. Mediators are in a unique
position to expand the range of possibilities available to divorcing families. A basic
assumption of mediation should be that termination of a marriage necessitates a
restructuring of family life that enables as many children as possible to have a
meaningful and active relationship with both parents, free of inter-parental conflict. If
mediation does not exercise its educative and advocacy function, stressing the
desireability of active parenting by both parents, detailing the range of shared parenting
possibilities open to families and, where appropriate, actively facilitating and working
through the logistics of a shared parenting arrangement, it fails to live up to its true
potential.
Mediators also need to pay greater attention to the durability of parenting agreements,
and the need for parents to continue to improve their ability to cooperate and negotiate
with each other after divorce. The challenges facing divorced co-parents are numerous;
once in place, shared parenting requires an extremely high level of organisation,
cooperation, and commitment. Therapist-mediators can play a key role in helping parents to
meet these challenges; to add to its educative and advocacy function, mediation should
also include a support and troubleshooting component, a period of follow-up to assist
parents not only to share the parenting of their children, but to do so in a cooperative
manner.
A Therapeutic / Interventionist Model of Family Mediation
Given the desireability of cooperative shared parenting as a post-divorce arrangement,
the challenge is how to implement this new ideal as effectively and efficiently as
possible. A therapeutic/interventionist approach to divorce mediation--as contrasted to
the more structured, short-term, future-focused, and neutral mainstream model--may offer a
means of doing so. Within such an approach, mediation is used to introduce the option of
shared parenting as a viable structural alternative, reduce parents' anxiety about a
living arrangement deviating from the norm, help parents work through the development of a
shared parenting plan, and help them implement the plan in as cooperative a manner as
possible. A "therapist-mediator" guides the process, which consists of five
distinct yet overlapping phases:
(1) Assessment to determine whether the parents are both ready to enter into
shared parenting mediation, and whether shared parenting mediation is indicated;
(2) Education involving didactic presentations about the divorce (and mediation)
process, children's needs and interests in divorce, and effective communication and
problem-solving skills;
(3) Advocacy in the form of actively promoting shared parenting (where
indicated) as meeting the children's needs first and the parents' second;
(4) Facilitation of negotiations toward the development of an individualised
cooperative shared parenting plan, which outlines specific living arrangements, schedules,
roles, and responsibilities;
(5) Continuing support/troubleshooting during the implementation of
the shared parenting plan.
(INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE.)
Assessment.
Whereas the mainstream mediation model largely excludes psychological exploration and
history-taking, focusing almost entirely on the future relationship between the parties
(Coogler, 1979; Haynes, 1982), a therapeutic/interventionist approach begins with a
detailed assessment process to determine if mediation is appropriate, and to begin to
examine the type of post-divorce parenting structure that is most likely to be in the
children's and parents' best interests.
As illustrated in Figure 1, assessment focuses on four critical dimensions: (1) the
degree of acceptance of the termination of the marital relationship by both spouses, which
predicts the level to which the parents are able to separate past marital issues from
continuing parental responsibilities, and the extent to which they will be able to
cooperate in future; (2) the nature of existing spouse relationships, which includes the
degree of overt hostility, the presence of spouse abuse, the extent to which one spouse
will use mediation to manipulate, threaten or control the other party, and the degree to
which mediation may be used to stall legal proceedings while planning for future
litigation; (3) the nature of existing parent-child relationships, which includes the
degree of involvement and attachment between each parent and the children, and the
presence of child abuse; and (4) the parents' expectations and desires regarding the type
of relationship they would like with their children following divorce. At this stage, it
is important to gather this information in the context of obtaining data about the
pre-divorce family, as opposed to what the parents would like in the way of specific
post-divorce parenting arrangements. The therapist-mediator's goal is to facilitate the
process of building shared parenting agreements step-by-step; the task of the
therapist-mediator during assessment is to obtain in general terms a statement from each
parent as to the level of involvement they would like to have with their children after
divorce.
The first goal of the assessment stage is to determine whether both parents are ready
to enter into mediation. The therapist-mediator needs to decide whether to begin the
mediation process or delay it, particularly when one partner has a continuing unrealistic
hope for reconciliation, or has not come to terms with the reality of the divorce. Setting
aside of negative feelings associated with the marital relationship is necessary to make
best use of child-centred negotiations. Divorce counselling may be instituted by the
therapist-mediator or referral made elsewhere before mediation can proceed.
The second goal of assessment is to determine whether shared parenting mediation is
indeed appropriate. Contraindications to mediation include cases of physical and sexual
child abuse or serious neglect, marked imbalances of power, and situations where abused
spouses are unable to contemplate negotiating with their former partner; the option of
legal proceedings to settle post-divorce parenting disputes in such cases should be
retained.It should be noted that the issue of the appropriateness of mediation in cases
involving spouse abuse continues to generate much debate (Corcoran & Melamed, 1990;
Hart, 1990). Mediation proponents argue that the process can be highly empowering for
abused spouses, enabling them to articulate their needs and interests and have these met
within a safe forum of dispute resolution. However, while there are effective strategies
to counter imbalances of power between the parties in mediation, continued marked
imbalances are unlikely to produce fair outcomes.
Contraindications to shared parenting include the inability to care for children
mentally, emotionally or physically, the physical, emotional or sexual abuse of the
children or spouse, significant substance abuse, intractable hostility between the
spouses, and an expressed desire of both parents for a sole parenting arrangement. There
are a number of valid reasons for one parent to be opposed to shared parenting; however,
opposition based on a lack of understanding of children's needs in divorce, a lack of
knowledge about shared parenting, or pressure from family, friends or professionals to
reject it as an option, should not be seen as sufficient reason not to consider it.
It is particularly critical to assess the nature of pre-divorce parent-child
relationships, including the degree of involvement and sharing of parenting tasks and
responsibilities within the marriage, competence in parenting, discipline methods used by
each parent, the degree of attachment between each parent and the children, and the degree
of influence each parent has in various areas related to children's growth and
development. According to Gardner (1984), shared parenting is a viable option when three
provisions are satisfied:
(1) both parents are capable and loving custodians--their levels of involvement with
and attachment to their children are high, and they wish to continue their child care
responsibilities;
(2) the parents have the potential to cooperate and communicate effectively in regard
to parenting concerns;
(3) geographic distance and other logistical constraints are not excessive.
Where parents acknowledge the centrality of their children in their lives, and the
importance of keeping children's interests at the forefront of their negotiations, the
prognosis for shared parenting mediation is good. This is probably the
therapist-mediator's most powerful lever in facilitating the parents' negotiations.
Education.
If the parents are seen to be suitable candidates for mediation, and meet the criteria
for shared parenting, mediation enters an educative phase. Here the therapist-mediator
begins the process of helping the parents make an informed choice about the type of
post-divorce parenting arrangement that is best for their children and themselves. This is
accomplished by means of educating parents in regard to three major sets of issues:
children's needs and interests in divorce, the divorce (and mediation) process, and
effective communication and problem-solving skills.
During separation, in coming to terms with their own pain, grief and reduced
self-esteem, parents often experience difficulty keeping focused on the needs of their
children; they also often lack adequate information about the impact of divorce on
children at different ages and stages of development (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).
Focusing on children's needs in divorce encourages parents to begin tuning-in to the type
of post-divorce parenting arrangement that will be in their children's best interests, and
sets the stage for active consideration of a co-parenting arrangement.
Update 2008 05 11: It is strongly recommended to take a look at "SHOULD
SCHOOLS TRY TO BOOST SELF ESTEEM? Beware the dark side", by Roy F.
Baumeister
The education phase also focuses on increasing parents' understanding of the divorce
process generally, including the process of mediation, and the range of parenting options
available to them, including shared parenting. Specific issues that may be covered,
depending on the needs of the parents, include relevant divorce legislation, the mediation
process and how it differs from legal resolution of parenting disputes, specific issues to
consider in planning for parenting after divorce, and types of post-divorce parenting
arrangements, including co-parenting arrangements.
The model also incorporates instruction in communication and problem-solving skills,
which enables parents to not only make the best use of the mediation process, but to
enhance their future negotiation and communication regarding parenting concerns. This
teaching begins as soon as parents enter mediation, and a contract for ongoing service is
agreed. An important first step in contracting is to establish mediation guidelines, and a
obtain commitment from each parent in regard to same. Beyond this, however, Andes (1991)
suggests that parents be told, "It's our goal in mediation to reach an agreement.
It's also my goal to help you enhance your communication and problem-solving skills so
that you can effectively negotiate disagreements as they arise in the future. To that end,
I'll periodically stop the process and provide some guidelines for communication and
problem-solving. Are you willing to try this?" Steps in teaching these skills may
include explicit instruction in regard to a particular skill, demonstrating or modelling
the skill, enactment, debriefing, and extra-session assignments; these should be brief,
minimal intrusions, and should be provided throughout the mediation process.
Advocacy.
The advocacy phase is essentially an extension of the education phase, with the
therapist-mediator assuming a more affirmative stance with respect to establishing the
"best interests of the child" as the objective criterion that will guide the
parents' negotiations and determination of the post-separation parenting arrangement and,
where appropriate, promoting a shared parenting arrangement as best meeting that
criterion. The benefits of shared parenting are first examined from the point of view of
children and then the parents. Specific information is given about the optimal types of
shared parenting arrangements for children at different ages, and for families in
different circumstances.
The therapist-mediator's use of language is particularly crucial at this stage: the
task is to move parents away from the legal notions of parents' claim to child ownership,
to the type of post-divorce relationship that serves the children's (and family's) best
interests. Shared parenting should be presented as a "neutral" position,
allowing both parents an optimal relationship with their children. In
advocating shared parenting, the therapist-mediator must be aware of the danger of being
perceived by one parent as forming an alignment with the other; caution must be exercised
in a situation when one parent wants a sole and the other a co-parenting arrangement. This
may pre-empted if the education and advocacy phases remain mediator-directed, taking the
form of a monologue, in which the therapist-mediator educates the parents about children's
needs in divorce, stressing the importance of continuing regular involvement of both
parents after divorce, and then informs them about the range of shared parenting options
available. During this time, the parents are not (yet) given the opportunity to indicate
their preferred post-divorce parenting arrangement. Rather, the therapist-mediator makes
clear that the development of the shared parenting plan will be guided by the principles
of maximum parental involvement, parental continuity, and mutual decision-making regarding
child care.
The therapist-mediator should emphasise that shared parenting does not necessarily
entail apportioning exactly fifty per cent of a child's time to each parent, a
misperception that can interfere with the formulation of a flexible and workable plan. At
this stage, avoiding the issue of percentage of time each parent spends with the
children and focusing instead on types of schedules and scheduling options may make
shared parenting more attractive and likely to be considered. The therapist-mediator may
thus introduce the parents to a range of shared parenting schedules, while emphasising
that their shared parenting plan will be "tailor-made" for them.
While the actual negotiation of the parenting schedule takes place in stage 4, during
the advocacy phase the therapist-mediator orients the parents toward the development of a
plan based primarily on the needs and capacities of the individual child, and away from
what may be convenient or expedient for the parents. The age and developmental stage of
the child are central: preschool children, who have a limited sense of time, in most cases
need to see both parents on a relatively frequent basis; with school-age children, there
are more shared parenting options available; adolescents may need the flexibility of not
being tied down to rigid schedules so that they have the time available to pursue their
own developmental needs and interests. For all children, consistency and (at least
initial) predictability of schedule are important; the use of a monthly calendar, which is
duplicated so that there is one for each household, gives children a clear sense of where
they are going to be and when (and parents a clear picture of their parenting times for
the month). The importance of children initially remaining in the same schools and
maintaining the same friendship and neighbourhood ties should be emphasised.
Before they enter the negotiation phase, it is important for parents to know that, as
there is a wide range of family patterns and dynamics, they will be able to select from a
range of shared parenting alternatives. Further, whatever shared parenting plan they
formulate will not be irrevocable: they will need to consult each other about their
children's changing needs at different ages and stages of development, and are likely to
have to modify the arrangement several times during the forthcoming years.
Facilitation of Negotiations.
In the negotiation stage, the feasibility of a shared parenting arrangement is examined
from the children's and parents' perspectives, and practical needs and constraints in
terms of day-to-day concerns and the realities of the entire family are considered. The
goal is to help the parents design a shared parenting plan meeting not only their
children's and their own needs and interests, but also their particular schedules and
lifestyles. The therapist-mediator's tasks at this stage are to reinforce the parents'
concern for their children's needs and interests as primarily guiding their negotiations,
help each parent to listen to and validate the needs and interests of the other, and
identify commonalities in their stated interests--including that of ensuring that the
welfare of their children is paramount in whatever outcome they negotiate. Mediation
becomes a process of building on areas of agreement, and assisting in the negotiation of
issues around which there is disagreement. Each parent will be expected to modify some of
his or her own personal desires, on the basis of the children's needs, those of the other
parent, and the everyday realities of everyone's lives.
In addition, the therapist-mediator may wish to meet directly with the children,
particularly those who are older, to explore their concerns and preferences regarding
post-divorce parenting arrangements. It should be made clear that the parents shall
ultimately determine these arrangements, but that it is important for them to have input
from the children in arriving at their decisions. The involvement of children in the
mediation process may also be helpful toward the goal of parental cooperation in parents'
future dealings with each other.
Ricci (1980) outlines three time dimensions and two aspects of decision-making as
central considerations in the formulation of a shared parenting plan. Time dimensions
include overnight stays (how many will there be with each parent?), the actual time the
child and parent spend together (time spent in the daily routines of caretaking and
parenting), and activity time (time spent together in recreation and special activities).
Difficulties are likely to arise if one parent has little activity time but the main
responsibility for routine time, or vice-versa, or if all overnights are with only one
parent. Parental decision-making includes decisions made in the course of daily
child-rearing, and major decisions (including schooling, religious affiliation and
training, and major medical decisions). Again, a plan in which one parent has power to
make major decisions without any responsibility for day-to-day decisions can be highly
problematic.
The actual negotiations follow a set procedure, established by the
therapist-mediator. Ware (1982) suggests a process of having each parent develop three
lists, in sequence--one from their perspective of their children's needs, one on the basis
of their own interests, and one from the point of view of the current realities of their
lives--with respect to Ricci's (1980) five dimensions of shared parenting. Figure 2
provides a framework and the salient categories to which parents refer as they draft their
three separate lists. After completion, the lists become the foundation for the
negotiation and ultimately the final written agreement.
(INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE.)
In addition to the three lists, a time survey--having each parent outline what a
typical week would look like when the child is living with them--may also help the parents
consider realistically what will be involved in parenting as separate entities, think
about their strengths and deficiencies as caretakers, and identify the skills they will
need to be able to carry through their shared parenting plan.
Through the negotiation stage, proposals and counterproposals regarding various
time-sharing formulae are made, and as agreement is reached on particular issues, a
parenting plan begins to take shape. Plan formulation proceeds from a skeletal structure
to the specifics of the actual shared parenting arrangement; the end product of mediation
is a written plan for cooperative shared parenting. In many cases, considerable detail and
specificity will be required to avoid initial confusion and conflict, including details of
scheduling contact with the children, and a list of which responsibilities are shared and
which are held by each parent. The need to keep dates and times absolutely sacred, until a
degree of trust and cooperation develops, should be emphasised.
The written agreement. While cooperative shared parenting plans take many forms,
it is important to include the following in the written agreement:
(1) A general statement to begin the agreement--the parents will cooperatively share
the parenting of the children, with cooperative shared parenting being defined as having
two central elements: equal responsibility for sharing in important decision-making as
well as the de facto daily parenting of the children, and parental cooperation with
respect to same. This includes respect for one another's parenting style and authority;
the parents agree to say or do nothing that will harm the relationship of the other parent
with their children. A helpful clause to include in this section is, "The parents
agree to foster love and affection between their children and the other parent."
(2) The sharing of parental rights and responsibilities--the parents agree to confer on
all important matters affecting the welfare of the children, including education, health,
and religious upbringing. They agree that each will have access to medical and school
records. A clause may be added saying that day-to-day decisions are the responsibility of
the parent with whom the child is living.
(3) The specifics of the actual time-sharing and residential arrangement.
(4) Details regarding holidays and special occasions.
(5) The agreement time period, and amendments to the agreement--a clause indicating the
length of the agreement, and that the plan will be reexamined at a later fixed time, or
from time to time. If no revisions are deemed necessary after the agreed time period, the
agreement is automatically renewable. A clause specifying the manner in which parents will
settle disputed issues in the future, with an emphasis on cooperation and a return to
mediation if necessary, may also be needed.
The aims of cooperative shared parenting mediation are two-fold: to help the parents
develop their own shared parenting plan, and to to help them establish an atmosphere of
cooperation with respect to parenting issues. Ricci (1989) emphasises the importance of
moving the parents beyond parallel parenting, where there is little or no
interaction between the parents, communication is strained or non-existent, and the
child's loyalties are divided, to shared parenting within a business-like working
relationship, where parents can talk with each other about parenting issues, and
ultimately to cooperative parenting, which builds on a spirit of forgiveness and
easier give and take, flexibility, and following the "spirit" of the plan rather
than the "letter" of the agreement. During the negotiation stage, the minimum
expectation is that parents are able to acheive a business-like relationship; as parents
begin the process of implementing the shared parenting plan, cooperative parenting may be
established as an objective.
Continuing Support/Troubleshooting.
The final stage focuses on the transition from parallel parenting to cooperative shared
parenting. To this end, the therapist-mediator monitors the parents' progress and
intervenes as needed, helping them work through conflict and reinforcing and consolidating
the communication and problem-solving skills taught during the mediation process.
Explicit guidelines for cooperative shared parenting can be developed at the time the
parenting plan is drafted. These may include: respect the other's parenting rules; avoid
criticizing the other parent, directly or indirectly; avoid placing a child in the middle
of an argument or using a child as a messenger; stick to the time-sharing schedule and
keep promises, but also be flexible in a way that meets the children's and the other
parent's needs (try to accommodate the other parent's request for changes, but the other
parent should remember that even small changes to the schedule that occur with little
forewarning can cause major problems); make transitions as comfortable as possible for the
child (be positive about the child's stay with the other parent; be courteous with the
other parent; once the child settles back in, let her talk freely about the other parent
or the other home); and respect each other's privacy (keep contacts and communications
restricted to set times, and to child-related matters).
Ideally parents should develop a communication system involving routinely scheduled and
open forums or "parenting meetings", to which they may bring their stockpiled
child-related concerns. Transition times (when children are transferring between their
homes) are not appropriate times to discuss important matters, and contacts during
stressful times should be avoided.
While the shared parenting plan should generally be highly structured at the beginning,
over time, flexibility, creativity, and compromise should be encouraged. In addition to
teaching parents negotiation and problem-solving skills during mediation, the expectation
that changes to the plan are inevitable should be established; it is inevitable that
shared parenting arrangements will require reevaluation and change over time, based on
children's changing developmental needs and the parents' own changing circumstances.
Future changes should not be regarded as indicative of failure of the original parenting
plan, but rather the growth and evolution of a living agreement over time.
Therapist-mediators should attempt to ensure that parents have developed the tools to
negotiate these changes.
Contingency planning sets the stage for needed future changes. Potential obstacles and
areas of conflict regarding parenting can be anticipated and examined; issues such as
changing job demands, relocation, and how to deal with children's changing developmental
needs need to be discussed. Remmariage or cohabitation and stepfamily formation may affect
shared parenting in a significant way, as the problem of mistrust often reemerges when new
members join the family. Anticipating and preparing for such events can be an important
preventative measure.
Once a shared parenting plan has been negotiated and drafted, it should be implemented
for a specified trial period, lasting 6-12 months, along with therapist-mediator support
during this period. This is particularly important when shared parenting was not the
option of choice of both parents (or had not been considered) at the beginning of
mediation. At the end of the trial period, the plan is reviewed and made permanent,
modified, or abandoned. Knowing at the outset that the shared parenting arrangement will
be reviewed formally after a specified trial period will help parents agree to try the
arrangement, despite their anxiety about committing themselves to an unknown way of life.
Parents are generally reassured in the knowledge that the plan they negotiate is not
irrevocable.
Another important goal during the "troubleshooting" stage is that of
assisting the parents in their own and their children's adaptation to living as two
households. Establishing a routine and an environment conducive to children's adaptation
to the new shared parenting arrangement are critical tasks for both parents. Children are
generally anxious to know the specifics of their new routine, and the predictability of a
clear schedule facilitates adaptation. They also need to develop a sense of
"belonging" in both homes, and will adapt more easily if they have a place of
their own in each house, which they have helped in creating. Other important
considerations include deciding on children's items that need to be duplicated
(toothbrushes, nightclothes, school supplies, diapers and baby supplies for infants),
those that are divided between the two homes (shoes and clothing apportioned in measure
with how much time is spent in each residence, toys, books), and those that will go back
and forth between the two homes (cherished toys, bicycles, musical instruments) (Ware,
1982).
The troubleshooting phase will vary in length, depending on the needs of the parents,
and their ease of adjustment to the new shared parenting routine and the boundaries of
their new co-parenting relationship. Where conflict levels are high or when one of the
parents is ambivalent about the shared parenting arrangement, continuing
therapist-mediator support is critical.
In the future, parents may need the services of a therapist-mediator to assist in their
ongoing parenting negotiations; they should be urged to return for mediation beyond the
trial period, as future issues develop or past difficulties re-emerge.
Use of the model.
The therapeutic/interventionist model of family mediation is designed as an adjunct to
the service delivery of family therapists working with families during and after the
divorce transition period, and represents an alternative to mainstream mediation models
emphasising a neutral orientation to the resolution of post-separation parenting disputes.
The author has incorporated the model in his own private practice with couples and
families, and work in Canadian non-profit community agency settings which offer mediation
as part of a continuum of marriage and divorce-related services.
The model has not been implemented in court-based mediation settings. In Britain, given
the fact that time and resource constraints impose pressures to achieve quick agreements
within court-based services (Robinson, 1991; Ogus et al, 1989), the model may be better
suited to independent services, which allow divorcing parents more time to explore issues
related to the dispute toward reaching settlements. Compared to highly stuctured neutral
approaches, the therapeutic/interventionist model requires a longer-term process; while
the actual number of mediation sessions largely depends on the degree of conflict and
extent of impasse between the spouses, the assessment, education, and advocacy phases,
which set the stage for the negotiations, and the support/troubleshooting phase, which
seeks to enhance the durability of the agreement, are additional stages to mainstream
mediation approaches.
The model has been highly successful with couples who have voluntarily involved
themselves in the mediation process. Given the reported success of
therapeutically-oriented legislated mediation programmes (in U.S. jurisdictions where
mediation is mandatory in cases of post-separation parenting disputes) (Brotsky et al,
1988; Johnston & Campbell, 1988), the model may also be effective in cases where one
or both of the parents have not entered mediation on a voluntary basis. The model's
emphasis on assessment and education in the beginning stages is well suited to work with
couples mandated by the courts to attempt to mediate their dispute, and provides an
effective mechanism for determining the appropriateness of mediation and shared parenting
through assessment of the nature of existing spousal and parent-child relationships.
Consistent with the findings of Johnston & Campbell (1988), the model has also worked
well with high conflict couples who have reached an impasse in their negotiations. The
model has been most effective with couples presenting at an early stage in the divorce
process, prior to extensive legal involvement, before post-separation parenting patterns
become established and consolidated.
In its exclusive focus on post-divorce parenting issues, the model goes counter to the
prevailing (North American) trend in mediation toward assisting divorcing couples in their
negotiation all divorce-related matters, including the financial aspects of divorce (child
and spouse support, and property division). Couples most benefitting from the process are
those whose primary dispute relates to post-divorce parenting, and either concurrently or
subsequently address the financial aspects of divorce within or outwith mediation. All
parenting agreements reached in mediation are made "without prejudice" and are
subject to review by the parties' solicitors, who assist toward legal formalisation of the
agreement.
In ensuring that children's needs and interests and shared parental responsibility
remain at the forefront of the mediation process, the therapeutic/interventionist model
incorporates the primary intentions of the Children Act 1989. The process also sets the
stage toward a high degree of clarity in residence and contact orders made by the court,
as negotiations focus on three distinct time dimensions of post-divorce parenting, and two
aspects of parental decision-making: residence and contact are clearly delineated in terms
of overnight stays with each parent, actual time spent together, and activity time;
parental decision-making is broken down to include negotiation of both day-to-day and
major decisions.
Conclusion
Cooperative shared parenting is a post-separation parenting arrangement comprising two
essential elements: both parents retain an active parenting role and decision-making
authority with respect to their children, and both have successfully negotiated the task
of separating their previous marital conflicts from their ongoing parental
responsibilities. Such an arrangement is regarded as the healthiest and most desireable
post-divorce outcome for all family members.
With adequate therapeutic support, the ideal of cooperative shared parenting could
become a reality for a significant proportion of separated, divorced and remarried
families. Such an outcome has largely eluded those practicing traditional approaches to
dispute resolution in divorce, including mainstream models of mediation. When applied to
the divorce arena, the mainstream model, with its highly structured and neutral
orientation, is extremely limited in its potential: a pure form of mediation which is
strictly rule-governed and limited to dispute settlement does not permit the wealth of
data related to positive post-divorce outcomes to emerge and guide the mediation process;
avoiding influencing the outcome of the negotiations at all costs does not allow for
active intervention which may ultimately benefit family members.
A therapeutic/interventionist approach to family mediation offers an effective
alternative to the mainstream mediation model, and may be the key in establishing
cooperative shared parenting as the norm, rather than the exception, for divorced
families. The model represents a radical alternative to traditional approaches: its goals
are therapeutic (facilitating the adjustment to divorce for all family members,
restructuring the parents' relationship, restructuring parent-child relationships,
enhancing communication and problem-solving skills); the mediator's role is highly
interventionist (influencing a settlement that is in the "most adequate" if not
"best interests" of the child as well as fair to both parents); assessment and
detailed history-taking with respect to existing co-parental and parent-child
relationships are emphasised; and interventions are geared toward the promotion and
facilitation of cooperative shared parenting after divorce. The mediation process is
transformed into a longer-term therapeutic endeavour, focused not only on the production
of a shared parenting agreement, but on the durability of that agreement.
Mediation focused on the development of post-separation parenting plans requires a
distinct approach; the neutral mainstream model, designed for use in vastly diverse
arenas, has shown itself to be an unwieldy instrument in the realm of family transition
attendant to divorce. The therapeutic/interventionist model is presented as an effective
alternative, one that is ideally suited for use by family therapists working with families
in transition and specifically designed toward the development of post-separation
parenting plans, that operationalises the principle of shared parental responsibility
underlying emerging developments in divorce law.
Posted with permission by coparent@interchange.ubc.ca
See also:
Edward Kruk, Ph.D.. Address details and
references to other writings by him are accessible at http://www.swfs.ubc.ca/about_us/faculty_pages/kruk.htm
and also at his own website.
Back to Divorce Issues:
Main Page
|
|
Share
