Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T02:15:26.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Redefining Parenthood after Separation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2011

Patrick Parkinson
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access

Summary

Over the last few years, different jurisdictions have retreated from the winner-takes-all notion of custody in different ways. That process has moved further in some European jurisdictions than it has in most of the United States, but the direction of the movement is the same.

THE MOVEMENT TOWARD JOINT CUSTODY IN THE UNITED STATES

That process began in the early 1980s with the movement toward joint legal custody in many States. Courts and legislatures began to respond to a shift in emphasis from the need of the child to have an attachment to one “psychological parent” to a need for children to maintain relationships with both parents. Pressure for a legal presumption that the court should award joint legal custody was particularly strong in North America, but it was also experienced in other western countries.

The term “joint custody” is a term with multiple usages in different parts of the United States. The position is well summed up by Ann Estin:

[I]n practice “joint custody” is not a single, unitary category…. Joint custody sometimes refers to sole legal custody in one parent combined with some form of shared residence. This arrangement allows parents to “share access to children and child-rearing responsibilities,” and, depending on the time-sharing provisions, may permit frequent and prolonged contact. While some monitoring can occur with this pattern, it does not give the nonprimary parent a right to control or even to participate in decisions concerning the children. Alternatively, divorced parents might have joint decisionmaking authority, while the children reside primarily (or almost exclusively) with one of them.[…]

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Elrod, Linda and Spector, Robert, A Review of the Year in Family Law 2007–2008: Federalization and Nationalization Continue, 42 Fam L.Q. 713 (2009) Chart 2Google Scholar
May, Susannah, Child Custody and Visitation, 11 Georgetown J. Gender & L. 381 (2001)Google Scholar
Ellis, Jane, Plans, Protection and Professional Intervention: Innovations in Divorce Custody Reform and the Role of Legal Professionals, 24 U. Mich. J. L. Reform1 (1990)Google Scholar
Dunne, John, Hudgins, Wren, & Babcock, Julia, Can Changing the Divorce Law Affect Post-Divorce Adjustment?, 33 J. Div. & Remarriage3 (2000)Google Scholar
Bartlett, Katherine, US Custody Law and Trends in the Context of the ALI Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, 10 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 5, 7–8 (2002)Google Scholar
Vauvillé, Frédéric, Du Principe de Coparentalité, 209 Les Petites Affiches4 (2002)Google Scholar
Fulchiron, Hugues in L' Autorité Parentale Renovée, Répertoire Du Notariat Defrénois959 (2002)Google Scholar
Boulanger, François, Faut-il Revoir les Règles D'attribution de L'autorité Parentale?, 1999 Recueil Dalloz Chroniques233Google Scholar
Fulchiron, Hugues, Custody and Separated Families: The Example of French Law, 39 Fam. L. Q. 301, 306 (2005)Google Scholar
Boulanger, François, Modernisation ou Utopie?: La Reforme de L'autorité Parentale par la Loi du 4 Mars 2004, 2002 Recueil Dalloz Chroniques1571Google Scholar
Verschraegen, Bea, Elterliche (Ob-)Sorge – Regel und Ausnahme: Wer bestimmt, wer entscheidet? 1/2010 Interdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für Familienrecht4 (2010)Google Scholar
Kurki-Suonio, Kirsti, Joint Custody as an Interpretation of the Best Interest of the Child in a Critical and Comparative Perspective, 14 Int'l J. L. Pol'y & Fam. 183, 188 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryrstedt, Eva, Custody of Children in Sweden, 39 Fam. L. Q. 393 (2005)Google Scholar
Bastard, Benoit, Une Nouvelle Police de la Parentalité? 5 Enfances, Familles, Générations11, 16-17 (2006) (Sophie Crosby trans.)Google Scholar
Bastard, Benoit, Controverses Autour de la Coparentalité: Coparentalité, Homoparentalité, Monoparentalité …Où va la Famille? (2005) 156 Sciences Humaines40Google Scholar
Cadolle, Sylvie, La Transformation des Enjeux du Divorce: La Coparentalité à L'épreuve des Faits 122 Informations Sociales136 (2005)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×