ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, December 12, 1996 TAG: 9612120024
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: STEPHEN D. RIBBLE
IN RESPONSE to your Dec. 2 editorial, "Tug of war over children":
In June 1995, at the request of the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare, Dr. Beth Doll from the American Psychological Association's Division of School Psychology prepared a report summarizing and evaluating all available research regarding joint custody and its impact on children's welfare. In her report, she identifies the following issues typically considered in supporting or refuting joint custody:
* Father involvement with children.
* Best interests of the child standard.
* Child support.
* Relitigation and costs to the family.
* Parental conflict.
In regard to these issues, Dr. Doll concluded that joint custody increases father contact and involvement with children, facilitates children's positive adjustment, increases or doesn't significantly decrease child support, decreases relitigation, and results in either less or no greater conflict between parents. The report was based on 23 studies conducted between 1979 and 1994, and was intended to provide the commission with a "balanced and informed view,'' not biased by any one particular group's opinions - be it father's rights or mother's rights.
In summary then, this report demonstrates that joint custody isn't only in the best interests of the child, but of the family as well. And, indeed, of the community in general, for aren't well-adjusted children more likely to grow up to be well-adjusted adults?
As to your concerns regarding the "tug of war" that may ensue should the father be granted joint custody, I would suggest that the problems you have mentioned aren't unique to divorced families. Parents disagreeing over family issues and children who attempt to manipulate by pitting one parent against the other are certainly not uncommon in two-parent households. Divorced parents will resolve these matters the same as married parents, i.e. if the two are prone to compromise, they will find common ground; if not, they will continue to argue. Again, the studies indicate that granting joint custody may improve the relationship between divorced parents.
And as for the question of where these children actually live: quite simply, they live with their parents. They have a home with their mother and a home with their father. To tell a child that he lives with his mother and he visits his father conveys the message that his father is the equivalent of an uncle, grandparent or any friend the child may also "visit,'' reducing the role of the father - in the eyes of the child - to something less than a parent. It completely ignores the unique contributions the father brings to the upbringing of his children. Is this really the lesson we want to teach our children? I pray not.
So, will passing a law requiring judges to grant joint custody in the majority of divorce cases solve all society's woes? Will it put an end to teen-age pregnancies, maladjusted children and deadbeat dads? Absolutely not. Simply put, it's "something different." And the need to try "something different" is evidenced by the ever-growing number of these child-related problems, as well as the swelling number of custody and support cases being tried and retried in our courtrooms. And the studies indicate that it's a positive "something" with respect to children.
Unfortunately, judges live in a world of "precedence,'' leaving little room for "something different.'' What is required, then, is new legislation. The state legislators should pass the bill for a presumption of joint custody. Our children deserve it.
Stephen D. Ribble of Salem is a programmer with a local insurance company.
LENGTH: Medium: 69 linesby CNB