Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Can Equal Shared Parenting work where there's high conflict?

After I applied for relocation, my ex changed his application for Final Orders from EOW to week-about 50/50!  Phew!! This from a guy whose wife goes into a screaming fit when she sees my car, a guy who thinks orders that are 'clear cut' will negate the need for him to EVER speak to me again etc etc.

Thank God it all fell through and we are going interstate, and away from this madness.

Apparently shared care is most often awarded to those families where it is least likely to work - where there is poor communication and high conflict.

My daughter is not even allowed to talk about 'mum' when she's at her father's.  She's an innocent little 8 year old kid who should be allowed to talk about whatever her innocent little mind wants to talk about, without censorship by ego-driven individuals who see her as a pawn in their fight against me.

Waiting for sanity to prevail.

Veni, vidi, vici
Valonas said
Apparently shared care is most often awarded to those families where it is least likely to work - where there is poor communication and high conflict.
Where did you get this from? I am not aware of any research that indicates that this is the case. The only research I am aware of is one of a very limited nature, which only cautions against shared care and only in high conflict situations. The study was further lacking in that there was no comparison done against other groups. Furthermore the study itself was of very limited periods, 3 months if I believe correctly. There is an article, by Jill Burret and Michael Green that cautions against the caution, that article clearly shows the flaws in this study and of the findings contained therein.

I don't believe that the study concluded that poor communication itself was an issue, rather that poor communication is one of the traits to be expected in a high conflict situation. I believe that there is a term parallel parenting that caters for and works in poor communication scenarios.

The study was also lacking in that it provided no consideration or recommendation of alternatives.

What does exist is much sound research that shows the adverse affects of a child being detached from one of it's parents. Such a child is far more likely to resort to a life of crime and or drugs, far more likely to commit suicide, for daughters far more likely to be promiscuous and thus far more likely to perpetuate recurrences, far more likely to under achieve at school and in life. There is also evidence in research that shows that the household of the "single mother" is more harmful to children than that of the single father or that of the intact family. None of the latter mentioned as being considered in the study, yet another set of reasons to be very cautionary about this rather poorly established and apparently, based upon what you have brought to this topic, very much over used caution.

However Valonas, I would like to know if you have obtained statistics that show that shared care is primarily given when there is poor communication or high conflict? I'm pretty sure that the SRL's who are very much up on the judgment's made, would themselves dispute that this is the case.

I'm not sure why you have brought your own situation into this topic, however it appears, assuming that "high conflict" exists, that it contradicts what is "apparently the situation". Perhaps that contradiction is something you could mull over.

Perhaps you could also mull over the question "How damaging is it to not have equal shared parenting in high conflict situations". Perhaps by then considering an expansion of both questions to consider the greater field, by removing the high conflict criteria, it would easily be seen that the real issue is not shared parenting but the high conflict. Seeing that, those who really have concerns for children would concentrate on the removal/reduction of that factor rather than the removal of the children due to the factor being present.
Not all shared parenting arrangements come from judgements.

Often, shared parenting is arrived at as part of consent orders to avoid something less palatable at the completion of a final hearing.

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. 
To Mike T, I don't understand how parallel parenting would be in the best interests of BD who has a chronic illness.  My style of parenting is co-operative, surely the BF should change to my style rather than vice versa?

I wish there was a way to remove the conflict, so as much as possible, I disengage from the games, but as stated above, this non-communication puts BD in grave danger due to her medical condition.  At age 8, she's not old enough to bear the burden herself yet, nor do I wish to push her to maturity too quickly simply because BF wants to act like a spoiled kid.  She requires constant care and monitoring and for her best interests, all carers should be on the same pagee. so to speak and sharing all relevant information  freely etc.

He has shown his attitude to parenting by refusing to do the parenting after separation course, going to separate specialist appointments etc.  All in the name of childishness and refusal to put BD first.  I regret the post-separation parernting course wasn't made part of the orders - it should be mandatory for all.

The broad sweeping statement about all children of single-parent families (headed by women) is very narrow.  Extended family support, education level and socioseconomic status etc also are factors to consider.

I was brought up in an intact family and went off the rails whereas friends of mine, brought up in single-parent homes, have done really well for themselves.

It sounds like we may be talking about some of the same research and reference to the Courier Mail article.

Tim Carmody speaks a lot of sense.  All this court business is sickening.  Court is no place to try to create harmonious families.   BD's solicitor was very provocative and constantly fanned the flames of conflict and egged him on.  Bled him dry of all his money, now BF won't pay maintenance.

Where's the justice for kids when BF can blow $40000 on solicitors (whilst paying $27pm CSA)???? and then cry poor again?

HUH????  Have I missed something?

I'vve heard the term "Less Adversarial Trial".  What I went through seemed very adversarial to me.  BF ran out of money apparently before it went to court and I have my relocation now.

Veni, vidi, vici
Valonas said
To Mike T, I don't understand how parallel parenting would be in the best interests of BD who has a chronic illness.  My style of parenting is co-operative, surely the BF should change to my style rather than vice versa?

I wish there was a way to remove the conflict, so as much as possible, I disengage from the games, but as stated above, this non-communication puts BD in grave danger due to her medical condition.  At age 8, she's not old enough to bear the burden herself yet, nor do I wish to push her to maturity too quickly simply because BF wants to act like a spoiled kid.  She requires constant care and monitoring and for her best interests, all carers should be on the same pagee. so to speak and sharing all relevant information freely etc.
The principle of parallel parenting would be to avoid the conflict in order to maintain the best interest of the child by way of avoiding abuse of the removal of the humane right of the child to know and be cared for by the child's parents. I can't really comment on how this could work with a chronic illness which a) I don't know what it is and b) that even if I did I likely wouldn't know what special care and attention it required. However it does appear from what you have said so far, primarily based upon the other parent currently or what appears to be until very recently, having contact, that either you yourself or the appropriate experts, the latter if you have considered the child in need of protection against the inadequacies of the other parent (which you do appear to say is threatening the girl's life), do not consider the other parent's abilities threatening to the child's welfare, that is unless I have misread what you have said. I haven't given consideration that this chronic illness has suddenly come about. In which case I believe there are priority avenues that can be followed. If this is the case then the SRL's would be able to advise on the avenues.
Valonas said
He has shown his attitude to parenting by refusing to do the parenting after separation course, going to separate specialist appointments etc.  All in the name of childishness and refusal to put BD first.  I regret the post-separation parenting course wasn't made part of the orders - it should be mandatory for all.
I can understand any parent who has been a parent for some time perhaps resenting being told/asked to do such courses, especially as parents in intact families aren't required to do such courses to see their children. I can also understand that some parents would consider such courses as being just another way of some milking the "Family Separation Cow", However, if the other parent were to venture here I'm quite sure that most on here, myself included, would recommend attendance. Again if I recall correctly I have done so in the past. To contradict that I believe correctly a Judge has questioned the worth of such courses as being, in some situations, just another box to tick off (my interpretation of what I recall).
Valonas said
The broad sweeping statement about all children of single-parent families (headed by women) is very narrow.  Extended family support, education level and socioseconomic status etc also are factors to consider.

I was brought up in an intact family and went off the rails whereas friends of mine, brought up in single-parent homes, have done really well for themselves.

It sounds like we may be talking about some of the same research and reference to the Courier Mail article.
I'm sorry that you considered what I said as a broad sweeping statement. I am of the understanding that "likely" does not mean will, thus reducing the coverage. Also again I'm sorry if I put it across the wrong way, but the only point that was specific to a gender was that of children being at a higher level of risk of harm in the household of the single mother, if I recall correctly. I specifically did not specify gender in regard to the other points and believe that with the one exception, that of children being at greater risk of harm in the household of the single mother, that a child who has is separated from one parent, be that parent a father or mother, is far more likely to suffer in the areas I have said.
avoiding abuse of the removal of the humane right of the child to know and be cared for by the child's parents
The SM made it clear from early on that BD was not really part of her family (she has girls from first marriage, makes it difficult for them to see the father - maybe he should join DuDs) and not really welcome there. Her behaviour has been what I would call abusive towards BD. BF has not seen fit to address this as his priority is pleasing and appeasing his wife.

It's sad that some women get involved with men who they know have children but then work to edge the children out. As a BM I do what I have to, to protect my child and keep her safe.

especially as parents in intact families aren't required to do such courses to see their children.
No, because it's called a "Post-Separation" Parenting Course. Mind you, it's harder to get a driver's license than to become a parent, maybe mandatory parenting courses for all wouldn't be a bad idea.

Even as I write, the BF is probably pumping our daughter as to how much he will miss her, which only hurts her, it doesn't help the situation any. :(

He hasn't a clue about emotional care of a child and is not interested to know.

All he cares about is minimizing his income to avoid CSA.

Veni, vidi, vici
In most cases that parallel parent it's not a choice but rather a compromise. It comes from the other parent not being willing to participate in any sort of structuring between the homes of the child.

This does confuse the child in some ways but providing one parent does keep consistency with basic parenting issues then in most cases the child does act out more in the home that is chaotic in nature. In saying this parallel parenting does not always mean that both homes do not have the same consistencies but could also be expressed that neither parent has the ability to reduce conflict between each other at this point so to reduce conflict there is little or no interaction unless expressly necessary. Both parents love the child/ren equally and are both a positive influence in the child/rens lives though can not interact between themselves.

The use of alienation by either parent or both would not be classed as parallel parenting but rather simple abusive techniques of control and manipulation.

Extended families are always hard and unfortunately sometimes new partners issue controls in that relationship and this can add even more problems to the child in finding their place with in this family, you do express knowledge of the internal workings of the family unit which I have to admit I have never been privy too though I have talked to my daughter about problems she may have and has had at her mothers, the rest of my assumptions are due to the fact she is an habitual creature and has lived up to this.

I have found that most information tends to be a one way street where our child is concerned, a lot goes out and limited comes back, this can be frustrating but it is part of trying to encourage the other parent to consider the needs of our child.

Parallel Parenting is not a dirty phrase and when you consider most current situations it is the preferred method of parenting and much of this is due to environmental conditions such as extended families and short stays at the non-residential parents home, there is no time to set up any major parenting structure other than a basic one so there is little need to co-parent anyway.

Awarded shared care well if shared care is awarded by a judge then there would be a very good reason why he feels it would benefit the child especially if the parents are adversarial, but then if you look deeper into the judgement you may well find that it's one parent that is adversarial and extra time is awarded to the other parent to compensate and reduce the damaging effect this parent could or would have on the child.

Perhaps it's not done in situations that are pre-determine not to work but rather done in the best interests of the child, and for this to be a judicial determination kinda lets you know the child needs both influences equally to be balanced.

As far as children from separated families being more likely to go off the rails you would need to consider that there has been a significant increase in this area, we are up to near on a 50% divorce rate, it's not there yet but it's still crawling so the number of effected children has increased, concerns about increased participation of females in violent act in the U.K. seem to correlate to single parent families and separated families but more studies nee to be done to determine what the social effects of this area truly are as minimal factual studies are pursued in this country, the reliance on small specific areas determine what questions are ask to give low population statistical pre-determine answers. This tends to answer nothing significant.

It's all very interesting discussion that is multi-faceted but I have to admit as a victim of relocation being used as a tool to make me suffer as much as possible and with no consideration to the effects on our child along with more than a few other dirty tricks it is very hard to realise a positive reason to remove a loving parent from a childs life but I do admit to being bias on the topic.            
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets