Best Interests of teh Child
There’s no such thing as a good divorce: but biased SMH Journalist beats the same drum
Editor: The following study is quite interesting, but in some of its finding is quite out-of-step with almost all previous studies.
The author of this article, Adele Horin, also puts an odd twist to this particular study, and I suspect creates a misleading impression, especially in the closing, that sole parenting is the optimal arrangement for children of divorce, even when the divorce is amicable, which is in fact quite contrary to what the Amato study found.
This is not surprising given the well-worn path of previous articles by Horin, who seems to obsess along the same lines, repeatedly, which I suspect says a lot more about Horin’s personal ideology than it actually says about the research itself.
In any case, one should more accurately interpret this study as suggesting, contrary to the foundation of the current family law act (2011), and in direct opposition to the shrill of many women’s rights advocates, that “conflict” during divorce does not impact children anywhere near the extent that the actual divorce does, nor the resulting loss of one parent. As such, conflictual divorces should play a lesser role in determining whether Shared Parenting should be provided for in the event of divorce, as divorce and sole custody are the two most significant stressors that children face, even in the face of benign and often temporary conflict.
Jen McIntosh: Child Abuse by stealth – flawed research and ideology contaminating family law
Mis-represented, poorly structured, open to observer bias, inaccurate, agenda driven, pseudo-science. These are some of the apt descriptions of the recently released guidelines on shared parenting recommendations for toddlers, which attempt to contradict volumes of research, dating back decades, from hundreds of independent researchers, all who have found quite the opposite.
I would encourage all to treat these guidelines as policy statements from an ultra-left leaning political party, rather than well-researched recommendations, given that it has all the hallmarks of a well-meaning, but recklessly determined, and ultimately unsubstantiated piece of political folly.
Jen McIntosh, a self-confessed anti-shared care Zealot
The main protagonist behind these guidelines, Dr. Jennifer McIntosh, is adourned with an esteemed salutation, but don’t be fooled into concluding that this woman is an impartial researcher, or a researcher who is promoting the welfare of children, for she is doing none of the above.
Jen McIntosh is a lobbyist first, and a social researcher last, given the pseudo-science she frequently promotes as the foundation of her anti-shared parenting campaigning.
Shared custody a mistake for the under-2s, says Lobbyist Researcher
Controversial: 'sleeping is stressful, but not daycare'.
SEPARATED PARENTS should not share custody of babies or toddlers under two, according to controversial guidelines released this week by a national infant welfare group, which seem to contradict decades of research and conclude the exact opposite.
”Prior to the age of two years, overnight time away from the primary care-giver should be avoided, unless necessary” according to the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health’s ”guidelines for protecting the very young child’s sense of comfort and security”.
The guidelines recommend that non-custodial parents, nine out of 10 of whom are fathers, should instead see children under two during the day, up to three times a week, gradually phasing in overnight visits after the second birthday. Families fighting custody battles in the Family Court should not share custody until the child is three, according to the guidelines.
