Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

ABC 7:30 Report Tuesday 3th June 2008 - Topic Shared Parenting

JO SNIBSON: They see their parents in conflict all the time and that's what's happened with the shared care. I'm in a constantly in a situation where I have to be in contact with someone that I really don't want to be in contact with.

Just thought I'd let you all know that on the 7:30 Report on ABC tommorrow night there be a documentary on Shared Parenting.

It doesn't sound as though it will be supportive.

Smells like propaganda to me.

4MYDAUGHTER
I saw the promo with my partner last night. His comment - "where are the men".

All the talkking heads in the promo were women….

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I did see a quick shot of a dad playing guitar with the kids in the west, he voiced something I missed.

I'm in the west not the guy ;)
Yep…

He was singing something like.."Billy-Jean is not my child. She's just a girl that says I am the one"

…. i am a good lip reader…

Last edit: by 4mydaughter


4MYDAUGHTER
Man your good I'm lucky to see his lips move these days.

Your sure it was a Kenny Rogers song " you picked a fine time to leave me Lucile ".

  
I thought it was Mental as Anything's " If you leave me can I come too?"
This is my comment on another thread.

I have seen the light praised be the father for he shall fight the demon harpies and their cult to save and salvage the remaining morsels of their plunder.

Perhaps a bit over dramatic but lets face it there was no misquoting of the integrity of the study but rather showed there was no integrity to begin with.

A white wash designed to simply manipulate, I am shamed to admit I saw positive in anything she has written her representation said more than any print on paper could say.

I was disgusted.

 

ABC > 7:30 Report > Experts warn against shared parenting settlements

As well as the transcript video of the segment can also be downloaded:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/

ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
WMV - 7 minutes - 23MB

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

ABC1 > 7:30 Report
3 June 2008

Transcript: Experts warn against shared parenting settlements

Reporter: Bronwen Kiely

Psychologists claim that 50/50 custody arrangements are proving disastrous for some families and many children in shared parenting settlements are in distress.

WMV - 7 minutes - 23MB

ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
MP4 (M4V) - 7 minutes - 24MB

The questions and concerns are all there - It is the obvious answer that eludes the mother in this story

Their choice of a "High Conflict" couple was interesting - the key  issues for Ms Snibson it seems are

The children's loyalties are divided - Does that mean she believes the children should only be loyal to her?

I want to move back to Ballarat - Does that mean he won't let her go - hang on she is complaining the children's loyalties are divided - perhaps they want to see their dad too!

I am dealing with someone who is rigid and inflexible - Does that mean - He won't let me take the children to Ballarat!

and finally
JO SNIBSON: They see their parents in conflict all the time and that's what's happened with the shared care. I'm in a constantly in a
situation where I have to be in contact with someone that I really don't want to be in contact with.
  Does this mean - The only thing I want to hear from him is "You can move to Ballarat" and until then I refuse to talk to him.

The intersting point in this little piece of advocacy journalism, which has been over looked - Ms Snibson already has all the questions and concerns - Its the answers she refuses to see. Quite plainly Ms Snibson is of the opinion the father should change his attitude, not her. Perhaps is she sought answers which she can influence things might change. How about a change in her attitude. Acknowledge the children might want to see their dad. Acknowledge that she has failed to separate her own feelings from the childrens. This would lead to a new position suporting the children's relationship with their Father and reduce the conflict. Who knows, she might even find it works.

This little paragraph from the "Children in Focus" faciltator training program - aimed at people working with high conflict parents.

 The authors acknowledge, therefore, that although the child focused interventions illustrated are designed to be effective with high conflict couples, the model has limitations. Like all facilitated processes, this model is limited by the presence of significant power differences, mental health issues, and/or by other questions that go to the capacity of individuals to represent themselves adequately in the presence of their former partners.


  The "Children in Focus" prodram was developed by a group of "Experts" which included Jenn McIntosh.

Do I detect a "Throw the hands in the air - I give up - it is too hard" from Ms McIntosh?

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
When the head of the family court says she is concerned and wants research - then it behoves us to provide that for her - because we all know the naturae of the research coming out of the insitutute of family studies.

My story (could have been on TV)
High conflict, parents don't get on, lots of court cases, financial ruin, children still OK and doing well.

debunk the myths.

Message from the show - get rid of 50/50 because of fear of damage to kids (kids are damaged anyway - but they recover). Reason for this message - women are likely to get full custody - so lest push that barrow of FEAR and VICTIM.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Putting it simply…

This MacIntosh is chick is purely about self promotion.

And I must say, she came across as 'damaged goods' herself. I wonder whats in her history?

END OF STORY!

4MYDAUGHTER
4mydaughter said
Putting it simply…

This MacIntosh is chick is purely about self promotion.

And I must say, she came across as 'damaged goods' herself. I wonder whats in her history?

END OF STORY!
 

I have heard this chick speak, she sounded just the same as she did on TV - that is to say boring! Dr Tom Altobelli FM has her measure. The self promotion aspect is all to obvious to see. 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
It's easy to get the right answers to your questions when you target a small demographic and focus on the negatives for self promotion.

Seeing her in action and listening to the answers left you in no question of agendas. I really do not find constructing a circumstance research.

 
Who will be funding her research? I bet she won't fund it herself.

A very negative interview, I wish the Dad would have said how he felt or maybe he realises in this case he doesn't matter.

The mother was very one sided, it was all about her. Why couldn't she speak to her children when they were with their father?

How do the children feel, when they are not allowed to speak about the week with their Dad.

Gee talk about damaging your kids, and I'm afraid in my opinion it is because of Mum.
The programme said
JENNIFER MCINTOSH: One of the most powerful pictures is this one. She wasn't quite 6 and she drew this and said this is how my mum and
dad see me.

BRONWEN KIELY: At her psychology practice in Melbourne, Dr Jennifer McIntosh uses the self-portrait of a young girl in 50/50 care to
educate feuding parents.


I didn't hear/see/read anything about any success of her "education methods", that in conjunction with her report appears to show that she is a failure with regard to understanding the situation and thus educating the parents? I wonder how much damage she is doing to the children and the parents in applying a remedy that would, according to her own report, be a crock and abusive?

I also seriously wonder about the picture, it was a stick mother, with it's face as a clock, used by her to suggest that the child saw her parents as time (note not the father in the picture). I really wonder if a child of less than 6 would produce such a picture and if so then with only the mother, surely the child as much as seeing time in a parent, is also showing, that the father is not in the picture, thus it would appear to only be the mother who is seen as time. Yet it was all about damming the father for being controlling? I would have loved to ask a question of her, "As you find managing time for your child so, and you agree with Dr McIntosh's report, should you pass this chore onto the father, would that not solve the problem?"

However, what if the child drew the picture and the time controlling woman was actually Dr McIntosh?
I think there is another, perhaps more helpful, way to interpret this broadcast. I think it is really sad that so few have focussed on the positive message of the first family shown.

The segment started with a look at a family who are succeeding with 50/50 care.  Parents and children all affirmed the success and both parents talked about what it takes to make it work.

Surely that is a good way for the public to see this - with the success story first, not just as a short ps at the end or omitted altogether.

The segment then showed a family in which 50/50 is not working, BUT it clearly showed that the problem in that family lay not with the 50/50 system because they had already shown it can work, but with at least one of the parents.

It was not clear what the problem really is with that family and I suggest we use caution in placing blame on either parent after only hearing one side of the story. However, the mother certainly said enough to show that her thinking is at least part of the problem.  She was very open about the fact that it does not work for her because she is '…constantly in a situation where I have to be in contact with someone that I really don't want to be in contact with.' To me, that means she acknowledged that what she wants affects how the children live.

I think what we can take from that is that the story showed that 50/50 can result in conflict, resentment etc when one or both parents does not want it or feels trapped by it.

That does not translate to 50/50 has to go.  It translates to both parents need to co-operate for 50/50 to work.  Nor does it give a licence for bad behaviour in order to override 50/50. One family got it right, the other didn't.  The one parent who spoke from the family that didn't get it right showed very clearly how she is different from the parents in the successful family. That, I believe, is what needs to be worked with; case by case and in general education and expectation.

I actually think that taking a step back and looking at this program differently may show it to be helpful.  Instead of viewing it as anti-50/50 parenting, why not see it as showing that success is possible and pointing out that the parent/s not the concept are the problem when it goes wrong?

Why not claim the victory and talk about the segment as a positive?



I know some will take issue with this point of view, but my take on it was an affirmation of the (obvious) conclusion that no 2 children are the same so how on earth can we have a proscriptive  "one-size-fits-all" model? Clearly, what works for one child might not work for another.
Katie said
That does not translate to 50/50 has to go.  It translates to both parents need to co-operate for 50/50 to work.  Nor does it give a licence for bad behaviour in order to override 50/50. One family got it right, the other didn't.

I'm sorry Katie, but I can't agree with that.

One family appeared to get it right and likely had found the formula that works best for them, and that appeared to be the consensus of all involved. I'll not argue against that. However the family that didn't get it right, said very little, it was only an advocate against shared parenting and one parent who provided views. The daughter said nothing nor did the father. It was an incomplete scenario. Why would the ABC allow that? Surely if, as the report said, there is "sharp rise" shared parenting, they could have found a complete family to provide feedback?

I also notice they chose to not show examples of what was basically being proposed, there are plenty of examples of those scenarios around, with and without acrimony.

Katie said
I think what we can take from that is that the story showed that 50/50 can result in conflict, resentment etc when one or both parents does not want it or feels trapped by it.

What you can't take from the story and something that needs to be considered in the whole picture, is that not having shared parenting can also result in conflict and resentment, especially as other factors then come very much into play. The program does not show that where there would be conflict with 50/50 that there would be no conflict if there weren't 50/50.

Saying that few advocate a strict 50/50 in fact most from my experience advocate for a presumption of 50/50 rebuttable by agreement or upon substantiated grounds. Who's to say that a little mediation could not resolve the shown example?
There will always be a minority of parents that don't want to make parenting after separation work. They are very vocal. I hypothesise that because the reasons they can't make it work is because they have issues themselves. The reasons that the children have issues is genetic (depression and other mental and personality issues) or environmental (being raised by someone with serious issues). These same parents would not be happy with any level of "spends time with".

My problem with the program is that well intentioned people will see the example that is not working and want to change things to "fix" this. It's just another platform for Dr Jen Mc to spout her ill informed rhetoric.

I agree with 4MD and suspect their is a personal agenda here.

The only valid thing Dr Jen had to say was that the problem lies in the maturity of one of the parties. Well, wouldn't it be prefereable if that parties therapist told them to grow up, rather than espousing the view that it is better to cut the other parent out of the child's life?

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Artemis said
My problem with the program is that well intentioned people will see the example that is not working and want to change things to "fix" this.
Artemis

That is the point I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to make.

Rather than writing this program off as being biased and anti shared parenting, why can't we do what you fear those people might do, but in reverse.

The program gave a clear example that shared parenting can and does work. Why not talk about that VERY LOUDLY.

As you point out, the program also said that where it does not work, the problem is with the maturity of at least one of the parents, not with the concept itself.

Why not combine these two thoughts and instead of focusing on the example which did not work, encourage people who may want to fix things to focus on the one that did work - claiming that the program showed it can work and does work, unless there is a problem with one of the parents, in which case the answer is not to cut either of the parents out of the child's life but to work with parents on their own maturity?



1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets