Shared parenting: fad or forever?

The shared parenting debate seems to be playing out in many places around the world. The latest that I've come across is the US state of Wisconsin, where 'Assembly Bill 54' is proposing that there be a presumption "that a placement schedule that equalizes to the highest degree the amount of time the child may spend with each parent is in the child’s best interest". The arguments in favour of the Bill may be found here, and those against here. The points raised on either side are, of course, similar to those raised over here and elsewhere.

Shared parenting clearly appears to be the idea of the moment. Whether it is an idea that has found its time or simply a current fad that will pass remains to be seen.


  1. I liked the arguments for and not against the bill. I add that not having such presumption and where conflict exists, seeking to avoid it by setting the children with one side for stability/ status quota, does encourage, not discourage conflict.

    As someone who is now fairly objective and unemotional on the subject now (split in January 2005), I do have another point also.

    I find it sad that the argument in favour is by a man and the argument against is by a woman. Would have preferred it the other way round. I find it sad that the area of family law seems to be a forum for sexual politics and man v woman. An observation, not sure I have a solution. Except to say, perhaps women shouldn't have the vote afterall ;-).

  2. Didn't mean the last argument, just saddened about the continuing arguing between the sexes. Perhaps that's what happens if you have an interest in family law (lore) for a long period of time. Perhaps it is time for a break for me from this subject.


Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.