Which is best for divorce kids, joint custody or single parent custody?

[Frylock]

This is surely an extremely complicated question. But I wonder what we know.

All other things being equal, given that a divorce has happened, is it best for kids to have their time split between parents, is it best to stay with a single parent while the other visits, or is it best for them to stay with a single parent and for the other to, basically, “disappear” so to speak?

Or something else?

[Green_Bean]

1. How is this a GQ?

2. There is no such thing as “all other things being equal” in a case like this.

[Frylock]

How is it not a GQ?

I asked what we know about this. If we don’t know anything, the answer to the GQ is “we don’t know anything.” If we know something, then the answer to the GQ is whatever it is that we know.

I’m floored if there’s not a lot of research out there on this topic, and I figure someone around here has some familiarity with it.

[Daerlyn]

I don’t really think you’ll find a factual answer to this; results will vary depending on the personalities of the people involved, the child’s relationship to each of their parents, and the respective financial situations. Those are just the big obvious factors off the top of my head, as a child of divorce, and I’m certain those who are divorced parents will be able to come up with a hundred more.

[Colibri]

[Moderating]

Given that the OP has placed this in GQ, I would request that posters focus on providing factual information on actual scientific studies or research on the question, rather than giving their own personal opinions or anecdotes.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Enright3]

It’s not a GC because there isn’t a factual answer.
At best the answer is “it depends.”

Every divorce happens for its own reason. Each reason could be a different reason why one type of custody is better than the other.

Out of curiosity, how old are you Frylock? I see so many people that think you can just boil everything down to black and white issues. Most issues are gray; and some are even grey.

[Frylock]

@Enright3

I see so many people that think you can just boil everything down to black and white issues. Most issues are gray; and some are even grey.

I don’t think every issue is binary. I don’t think this issue is binary.

I also know that good quality research can often be a corrective to common sense on issues like this.

[Omar_Little]

@Enright3

“it depends.”

^^^ This

Please move to IMHO.

[Enright3]

By and large, kids are better off having both parents in their lives.

These look like fairly old statistics, however from: http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm

Children from fatherless homes account for:

* 63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
* 71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
* 90% of all homeless and runaway children.
* 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
* 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
* 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).
* 71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
* 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children).
* 85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).

and from Ancpr.com is for sale | HugeDomains

Mother Custody versus Joint Custody: Childrens parental Relationship and Adjustment. Doctoral Thesis 1982. University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213. Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal) custody families. Children in joint physical custody were rated as better adjusted by their mothers compared with children of sole custody mothers. The childrens perceptions in sole custody situations correlated with the amount of time spent with their father! The more time children from sole maternal custody spent with their fathers, the more accepting BOTH parents were perceived to be, and the more well-adjusted were the children.

[Frylock]

Ah, Google was more of a friend to me than I thought at first.

If this compilation represents the literature fairly, it looks like shared custody is generally much better for the kids. Which surprises me–I was thinking sole might be best, as it avoids the confusion and disempowerment I imagine would come with being shuffled from house to house.

At the very end of that link, though, it’s noted by some researcher or other that it could be that joint custody is more likely to happen when the divorcing people are themselves both relatively mentally well-adjusted, and it may be that that issues forth in better adjustment for the kids, not the custody arrangement itself. Wonder if that particular avenue has been pursued in any recent research…

[WhyNot]

I think what we’re going to end up with here is a citation war. The fact is, there are studies which come out pro joint custody and others against. There are even some papers, in particular the American Psychological Association, Report to the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare, June 14, 1995, which is used by BOTH sides of the debate to bolster their beliefs. (The actual recommendation made was apparently against a presumption for joint custody, but the dissenting report is often posted by father’s rights groups as if it were the recommendation given, and of course is pro joint custody.

According to *The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Surviving Divorce © 2002 *:

Here’s what psychologists have found after long-term studies of families in joint custody and sole custody arrangements:

*Joint custody is a viable option only if the parents have an amicable relationship with each other, communicate well, and understand the nuances of their kid’s day-to-day routines. Parents in this situation feel more involved in their children’s lives than the noncustodial parent in the sole custody arrangement. On the other hand, in a family where one parent says “black” and the other parent says “white,” the children are better off with a sole custody arrangement to reduce the possibility that their parents will fight over every decision that must be made on their behalf.

*For parents not on friendly terms, joint legal custody, that is to say, joint decision-making, means more room for disagreement and continuation of conflict. These parents are more likely to return to court than parents who have one decision-maker (sole custody).

*If you’re able to communicate about the kids, are willing to live in close proximity to your ex, and have the time and resources to share “possession and access” (as they say in Texas) or “physical custody” (as it’s more commonly called), then it can be a great thing for everyone. But generally, only children who tend to be easy-going by nature can adapt well to this kind of living arrangement. Children who do poorly with constant change, have difficulty adjusting to new situations, and seem to need a great deal of stability and security in their lives don’t do well with joint physical custody.

The researchers ofAdolescents After Divorce found that while remembering special days like birthdays and holidays was postively correlated with adolescent adjustment, there was no correlation between amount of time spent with a non-custodial father (don’t remember if they studied non-custodial mothers or not) and adolescent adjustment. Also, spending time with their kids more often did not affect the closeness of the relationship.

[Frylock]

(BTW lest anyone get any ideas, I’m just curious about this, I’m not asking for any personal reasons… )

[TruCelt]

@Enright3

By and large, kids are better off having both parents in their lives.

These look like fairly old statistics, however from: http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm

and from Ancpr.com is for sale | HugeDomains

Mother Custody versus Joint Custody: Childrens parental Relationship and Adjustment. Doctoral Thesis 1982. University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213. Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal) custody families. Children in joint physical custody were rated as better adjusted by their mothers compared with children of sole custody mothers. The childrens perceptions in sole custody situations correlated with the amount of time spent with their father! The more time children from sole maternal custody spent with their fathers, the more accepting BOTH parents were perceived to be, and the more well-adjusted were the children.

The difficulty is this: In the case where both parents are healthy (mentally, emotionally) and reasonable people, you will almost always find joint custody. The state of having healthy, reasonable parents almost always correlates to well-adjusted children.

The courts really only allow sole custody in the case where one parent is not healthy. Having one unhealthy parent increases the chances of having a poorly adjusted child. (for reasons both of nature and previous nuture.) The more dysfunctional a parent is, the more the child, the protective parent, and perhaps even the court, will seek to limit their time with the child.

When studies like the above (40 families?!? that’s not too many.) are quoted in court, they are treated as if they represent ‘all’ families and children.

I sincerely hope the “researcher” above was sent back to class before being granted his Doctorate. Somehow I doubt it though.

[md2000]

My opinion, from personal experience and others I’ve talked to (sorry, not quite GQ level) is that I will agree with WhyNot - it’s more important that the parents be on good terms than much of anything else.

Being told “mommy’s a bitch” or “Daddy’s a jerk” when you have no personal evidence to back it up or personal experience does not bear it out, simply erodes your faith in adults, and especially the one telling you untruths.

Kids are very flexible and will adjust to any situation. It is difficult to brainwash them, because you do not know what they are really thinking; and manipulative parents often have issues that telegraph to the kid pretty quickly what are the right and wrong responses. Defend mom/dad elcits a screaming tirade, shut up results in peace and quiet. They learn nod and say yes and not to share feelings. Can that be good?

Canada has recently had a series of court decisions removing custody of children from parents who deliberately poisoned their children against the other spouse, recognizig parental alienation as a form of child abuse.

Similarly, if the child figures out that the two parents are competing for affection, and learns how to manipulate the situation - that cannot be good for the child or the parents.

Basically, how you behave around your child gives them a clue about how to get what they want in life. This could be positive or negative. The trouble with divorce is it brings out the nastiest in people usually; I think only a good sibling inheritance fight beats it for family-wrecking drama.

[Enright3]

@TruCelt

The difficulty is this: In the case where both parents are healthy (mentally, emotionally) and reasonable people, you will almost always find joint custody. The state of having healthy, reasonable parents almost always correlates to well-adjusted children.

The courts really only allow sole custody in the case where one parent is not healthy. Having one unhealthy parent increases the chances of having a poorly adjusted child. (for reasons both of nature and previous nuture.) The more dysfunctional a parent is, the more the child, the protective parent, and perhaps even the court, will seek to limit their time with the child.

When studies like the above (40 families?!? that’s not too many.) are quoted in court, they are treated as if they represent ‘all’ families and children.

I sincerely hope the “researcher” above was sent back to class before being granted his Doctorate. Somehow I doubt it though.

Wow… good point. Joint custody is a self fulfilling prophesy. Families who share custody raise better children because it’s better parents who are allowed to have joint custody.

[elbows]

Joint custody is also important because things change.

If one parent dies, one parent becomes addicted to drugs or alcohol, etc. It’s important that the child still have a connection to the other parent. It can start out one way and then end up another, no one knows what tomorrow holds.

[cstamets]

@Frylock

This is surely an extremely complicated question. But I wonder what we know.

All other things being equal, given that a divorce has happened, is it best for kids to have their time split between parents, is it best to stay with a single parent while the other visits, or is it best for them to stay with a single parent and for the other to, basically, “disappear” so to speak?

Or something else?

To the kid, honestly, it doesn’t matter who has custody. What matters is how involved the parents are in the kid’s life.

A kid with one parent having sole custody who gets to spend lots of time with the non-custodial parent will be much better off than a joint custody kid who has one parent that ends up disappearing anyway.

From the way you worded your question, I’m not sure you understand visitation. The parent doesn’t visit the kid. The kid visits the parent. So sole custody with frequent visits to the non-custodial parent isn’t much different than joint custody with legally defined split time - to the kid.

[TruCelt]

The absolute best situation I’ve ever heard of was one where the kids had their own house. Well, they didn’t own it (or rule it!) but the parents moved back and forth weekly and the kids stayed put.

I’d say if both parents are healthy, and the family can afford three households, that would be the ultimate arrangement.

[robby]

@TruCelt

The absolute best situation I’ve ever heard of was one where the kids had their own house. Well, they didn’t own it (or rule it!) but the parents moved back and forth weekly and the kids stayed put.

I’d say if both parents are healthy, and the family can afford three households, that would be the ultimate arrangement.

I just heard about this arrangement the other day, which is apparently referred to as “bird-nesting.”

It seems like it would be a real hassle to not just afford, but to maintain three households, particularly the one being time-shared by the divorced parents. This article came to the conclusion that the disadvantages generally outweigh the advantages.

[Nava]

@Frylock

If this compilation represents the literature fairly, it looks like shared custody is generally much better for the kids. Which surprises me–I was thinking sole might be best, as it avoids the confusion and disempowerment I imagine would come with being shuffled from house to house.

Shared custody doesn’t necessarily involve “being shuffled from house to house”, or being shuffled more often than kids who are sent to their grandparents’ for the summer. Just sayin’.