Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Dr Jennifer McIntosh 14 minute audio

A link to an appearance on Radio National by Dr McIntosh.

On 25 November 2009 Dr Jennifer McIntosh was heard on Life Matters.

The audio can be found at:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2009/2752321.htm

Three years ago, family law moved away from custody and access to the concept of shared parenting. It was designed to allow separated fathers to spend more time with their children.

Supporters say this is in the best interests of the child, but now the idea is being tested.

Clinical psychologist Dr Jennifer McIntosh previews her research findings on the impact of shared care ahead of a family conference in Sydney today.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
Surely "shared parenting "was not specifically designed to allow fathers to spend more time with their children, after separation, but that it was designed(sic) to allow fewer children to not lose their humane right to know and be cared for by their parents (that's both genders by the way). A humane right, that I understand, still exists today.

designed(sic)? Well it's not just a recent thing that has happened in the last three years as some try to make out, it's been around since, well if you spare more than a single brain cell to consider it, since we humans came out of that primeval swamp. That is intact families have throughout time shared the care and responsibilities for their children, it is a trait that humans and many other animals posses. Likely it is a a genetically inherited phenomenon, or very much a "basic instinct" as such it would very likely be a basic instinct for a child to expect this, perhaps part of why there is the humane right of a child to know and be cared for by their parents. Even if you narrowed it down to separated families it was happening before the 3 years, all that has happened is that family law has included a specific consideration of shared parenting under circumstances.

What amazes me, in a very sickening way, is that before the speech even gets started, propaganda most definitely designed(yep no sic here) to deprive children of their humane right, proven by the complete disregard for the humane rights of children being considered, is allowed to be fed to the "sheeple".  What does not amaze me though, is the very conspicuous willingness of those who show every wish to systemically abuse children by depriving them of their humane rights, to resort to lies and deception of the masses.
Radio National now seems to broadcast paid infomercials. It seemed like Mr T was adding the sell between scripted Q&A. Will I get a free grill and lose 30lbs if I buy most 10year olds prefer to live with one parent and those younger need a primary attachment.
 
I take issue with Ms McIntosh’s assertion that the shared parenting legislation is way ahead of the evidence of what is good for the children. Presumably she is advertising her niche “research” based on 30odd couples and her nuanced legislative approach but has she read the past 20 years of legitimate research. How does she explain those countries where equal shared parenting has been implemented as the starting default divorce rates have dropped from 50% to 20% in three years. Do their children spared the ravages of divorce get an apology. The beneficiaries of the $6bn/yr family law industry think not.

You  have a valid perspective.
This advocate for the woman's preference is very skilled in public domain.
Listen carefully to her chosen words.
Converting generalisations to inresputable facts is her skill..
I do not sense a correlalisation between the persona she projects as against the activities  she explores as a social researcher.
Her basic  theme is overiden by the generalisations that arise as conclusions.
If all humans are equally potentialed how can conclusions be arrived at which favour one gender before another?
Today a mother does …..
Tommorrow a father ……
Attributing analysis to random occurrences is as unpredictable as any yet uknown.
Is it not more important that both sexes act to ensure that children enjoy the potentials that being a human allows?

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
Nice dodge of the question "have you compared what these children (high conflict parents) experienced before (separation) to how they are now (post-separation)." (or words to that effect).

Dr McIntosh side-steps this and begins to talk about the benefit of a primary carer model. The correct answer is "No, that research has not been done".

In situations where one parent is driven to perpetuate conflict, they tend to drive conflict with others as well. Time with the other parent can provide a safe haven for the child and a model of normalcy.

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. 
By the sound of things she is covering a very tight demographic that is far from the norm and projecting this information into the expected norm.

It's hypocritical to try and suggest that those children who are in very high conflict situations will react positively to shared parenting when all they see is parents fighting but rather than look to a solution that removes the child from the conflict by stopping the parents from discussing issues in front of the child and keeping communication amicable, like grown ups. She suggests reducing contact between the children and one of the parents thus giving more time to the parent who better aligns the child to their cause, is this really healthy ??? .

This seems to be a little extreme for any professional whom is concerned with a child's well being, it seems like a bit of of an Ostrich solution, bury your head in the sand and ignore the problem rather than finding workable solutions that encourage parents to parent responsibly.

It seems to be a very blinkered response that could well increase conflict in the long term rather than address the effects conflict has on children.
In many of these situations of high conflict neither parent is looking to provide a solution and it does become more about the parents consideration to their rights because of the intense conflict being introduced by the system that is in place. this system needs to be able to play the role it has been designed to play and tell conflicting parents how to behave.

If parents accept that they will be held responsible for their actions and deterrents are in place conflict will reduce, soon as this is initiated society will come to terms that conflict is unhealthy for children  , in all relationships separated or not parents will adjust accordingly.

I may well be wrong about this but it all appears to be focused on a minority of highly effected parents and children, if this reflected itself on real life operations would never take place, we would not drive cars, medication would not be taken and nor would any other risk in life.

    
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets