'Conflict' Shouldn’t Withhold a Shared Parenting Vote: Op-Ed

Submitted by Terry Brennan, co-founder of Leading Women for Shared Parenting, in response to an Aug. 1 op-ed by Sen. William Brownsberger, D-Belmont. Brennan is a Newton resident.

The Massachusetts House recently passed a Shared Parenting bill, a momentous achievement, fourteen years in the making. The bill was a compromise effort of a Governor’s Working Group including bar associations, chief justices, parent’s groups, and advocates for domestic violence.

The bill had the endorsement of each member of the Working Group and the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Shared parenting has received tremendous support as an overwhelming amount of research shows its best for children, families and society. Shared Parenting has been endorsed by 110 world experts, is supported by 43 peer reviewed papers, and was the conclusion of the largest study ever on child wellbeing, reviewing 150,000 children after separation or divorce.

Further, a non-binding ballot initiative in the 2004 Massachusetts election seeking citizen endorsement for a default of shared parenting received over 600,000 votes and passed with 86% in favor. The overwhelming favorability of Massachusetts citizens isn’t unusual as Shared Parenting consistently receives over 70% support in both polling and legislative votes.

With such results, 20 states considered shared parenting bills in the last legislative session with Utah, Missouri, and Arizona recently passing laws enabling children to spend more time with their fathers. In fact, Arizona lawyers now tell Fathers their children have a 90% chance of being allowed equal (50%) parenting time and all agree, the new law is working well.

Yet in the Massachusetts Senate, the Bill wasn’t even allowed out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote. Why?

In justifying his opposition, Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee, William Brownsberger, cited three points:

“Whether divorce law should be changed to mandate shared parenting in post-divorce plans,”
“It might create too strong a push toward complex sharing arrangements in high conflict situations,” and “There is no consensus that the process as it works now is unfair to men or to women or that judges fail to appreciate the value of both parents."

Senator Brownsberger’s counterpart, House Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Representative John V. Fernandes responded to the Senator’s first objection, characterizing it as “a totally unfair and inaccurate reading of the House bill.”

I will focus on the Senator’s latter points of objection.

As a co-founder of Leading Women for Shared Parenting, an international child advocacy group, I’ve seen “conflict” used before in an attempt to block reform; almost always by the Bar Associations. Bar Associations are special interest groups representing attorneys and they don’t like Shared Parenting.

Instead of being influenced by attorneys who seldom even meet the children involved, Senator Brownsberger was given the opportunity to hear the 110 world experts who endorsed shared parenting with an offer extended to introduce the Senator to the psychiatrists, psychologists, child development experts, domestic violence experts, and family law experts making the endorsement.

Included in the paper endorsed by this esteemed group is a lengthy section on “conflict” stating:

“A meta-analysis of 33 studies reported better emotional, behavioral, and academic functioning for children in joint physical custody compared with children in sole custody, regardless of the level of conflict between parents.”

“More parenting time is not associated with poorer child outcomes in high-conflict families where there is no violence or abuse.”

“Conflict was neither more nor less damaging for children in shared care-time arrangements than for children in other arrangements.”

“Rather than magnify harmful effects of parental conflict, shared parenting may protect children from some of its negative consequences.”

The 110 experts concluded their section on conflict stating:

“A policy of automatically denying joint physical custody when a couple is labeled as 'high conflict' brings additional drawbacks in addition to denying children the protective buffer of a nurturing relationship. It sends the message that generating or sustaining conflict can be an effective strategy to override shared custody.”

So while “conflict” between divorcing parents is no justification to deny shared parenting legislation, it is, ironically, the reason why shared parenting legislation is difficult to pass. In his review of the implementation of shared parenting in Australia, University of British Columbia Professor Edward Kruk found:

"A marked reduction in child custody litigation has also been noted since the new legislation, with applications to court over child custody falling by a staggering 72%. Court determined parenting arrangements fell from 7.8% to 2.8% of cases and lawyer negotiation from 10.6% to 5.8% of cases. Corresponding to decreased litigation has been a marked increase in the use of family relationship centers and family mediation services. And most Australian parents (72%) now resolve parenting arrangements without the use of any legal services." (The Equal Parent Presumption, Dr. Edward Kruk, page 45)

Such results are why Bar Associations oppose shared parenting as it translates directly into reduced revenue for their membership.

While Senator Brownsberger’s has every right to his opinion “There is no consensus that the process at it works now is unfair to men or to women or that judges fail to appreciate the value of both parents,” the public deserves to know the realities of Family Court results.

As reported in the Boston Globe, Dr. Joseph McNabb, a professor at Northeastern University, analyzed custody decisions from Worcester Probate and Family Court in 1994-95 and found that fathers won sole physical custody (usually with shared legal custody) in slightly fewer than 9 percent of all cases. An additional 6 percent got shared physical custody. More recently, MIT Professor Phillip Greenspun conducted a study of every divorce case in Middlesex County in May of 2011. That study found:

“Women won custody more than 91% of the time that there was a 'primary' parent.”

“Only 7.5% of the children whose custody was at issue in May 2011 lawsuits in Middlesex ended up with true shared parenting or 'joint physical custody.'"

The report concluded:

“It is not rational for fathers to fight for custody because their chances of winning primary or shared parenting are insignificant.”

Despite the production of overwhelming research showing shared parenting is best for children in the sixteen years between the two studies, the Massachusetts Family Court results were almost identical in separating children from their fathers.

Upon receiving these and other statistics on the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court, Senator Brownsberger responded, “I agree that these statistics are troubling and that routine collection and disclosure of related statistics could be helpful."

While it’s no surprise those practicing in the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court don’t admit there’s sexist bias in our Courts, should everyone need to agree before reform is implemented?

Certainly, not all agreed with other “controversial” reforms, like gay marriage, equal pay or transgender rights, before they were implemented. Especially given the large body of research supporting shared parenting, why should children and the entire paternal side of their family be held to a different standard? Or is the difference solely because denying fathers a relationship with their children is estimated as an industry rivaling the auto industry in size?

In 2017, the International Conference on Shared Parenting will be held in Boston, bringing the leading experts in the world on timesharing and child development after divorce. A personal invitation has already been sent to Senator Brownsberger, such that he can debate his concerns against those who’ve dedicated their careers and considerable talents to the subject. For the good of Massachusetts children, I certainly hope Senator Brownsberger will attend.

From time to time, Beacon Hill Patch will feature voices from and in response to our Patch communities' state legislators, in the hopes of helping constituents better understand their elected representatives and engage with the issues. As such, we encourage civil debate and engagement from our readers.

Please, join the conversation! Contact your elected representative, comment here, or email alison.bauter@patch.com