Residência Alternada | Shared Parenting

Partilhe

Nielsen, Linda
(2015), Shared Physical Custody: Does It Benefit Most Children?, Journal
of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Volume 28, 2015, Number 1

Neste artigo Linda Nielsen faz um dos mais completos resumos não só da literatura cientifica sobre a residência alterna como responde a uma série de questões que são sistematicamente levantadas na área jurídica e algumas áreas da investigação. Com a clareza que se lhe conhece, aborda todos os temas, desde os estudos, à coparentalidade em situações de elevado conflito parental, passando pelos planos parentais e sugestões para os profissionais da área da justiça.

Nielson,
L. (2011), ‘Shared parenting after divorce: A review of shared residential parenting research’, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 52: 586–609.

Nielson revê os estudos existentes sobre guarda partilhada e aborda algumas das questões mais complexas e desafiantes com que se confrontam os decisores políticos, os pais e mães e o sistema de judicial. Por exemplo, que tipo de plano de parentalidade é mais benéfico para as crianças após o divórcio de seus pais? Quanto tempo as crianças devem viver com cada um dos pais? Como as crianças e os pais com guarda partilhada se comportam? Quão estáveis são esses acordos? De que forma, se houver, os pais divorciados que praticam a residência alternada diferem de pais cujos filhos vivem quase que exclusivamente com sua mãe? Linda Neilson é professora de Psicologia da Educação e do Adolescente da Universidade Wake Forest na Carolina do Norte, EUA. É autora de vários livros, incluindo Father-Daughter
Relationships: Contemporary Research and Issues
(2012).

 

Kitterød, R.H. and Lyngstad, J. (2011), ‘Untraditional caring arrangements among parents living
apart. The case of Norway
’, Discussion Papers no. 660,
Statistics Norway

Masardo, A. (2011), ‘Negotiating
shared residence: the experience of separated fathers in Britain and France
’, in C. Lind, J. Bridgeman and H. Keating (eds), Regulating Family
Responsibilities
, Farnham: Ashgate

Neste trabalho, Masardo baseia-se em pesquisa internacional que utiliza metodologia qualitativa para explorar e comparar experiências paternas de gestão compartilhada de residência na Grã-Bretanha e na França. Situado nas contrariedades das mudança legais e políticas de cada nação, ele explora experiências paternas de negociação residência compartilhada, olha para as diferentes maneiras nas quais o direito e a política estão a dar forma a esses acordos e argumenta que a capacidade de regulação para promover a mudança na nossa perceção das responsabilidades de género e afetos é particularmente forte neste tipo de residência multi-situação. De fato, tais práticas trazem a nomenclatura de uma dicotomia da família monoparental, levantado questões onde este modelo emergente da vida familiar deve ser colocado. Alex Masardo é um pesquisador honorário do Centre for the Study of Global Ethics, University of Birmingham, e CI da rede de bolsas da AHRC: Post separation Families and shared residence: setting the interdisciplinary research agenda for the future (2010-12) .

 

Fehlberg, B., Smyth, B., Maclean, M. and Roberts, C. (2011), ‘Legislating for shared time parenting
after separation: A research review
’, International Journal of Law,
Policy and the Family
25(3): 318–337

Altar-Schwartz, S., Buchanan, A. and Flouri, E. (2011), ‘Grandparents
Involvement and Adolescent Adjustment: Should Grandparents have Legal Rights?
‘ in J. Bridgman, H. Keating and C. Lind (eds) Regulating Family
Responsibilities,
Farnham: Ashgate

 

Parkinson, P. (2011), Family
Law and the Indissolubility of Parenthood
, Cambridge University Press

Há poucas áreas da política pública no mundo ocidental, onde há turbulência tanto quanto no Direito de Família. Muitas vezes, as disputas são vistas em termos de uma guerra sem fim entre os sexos. Ao analisar a evolução ao longo dos últimos quarenta anos na América do Norte, Europa e Austrália, Patrick Parkinson argumenta que, ao invés de ser apenas sobre a questão das diferenças de sexo, os conflitos no direito da família derivam da rutura do modelo em que a reforma do divórcio foi baseada na década de 1960 e início de 1970. A experiência tem mostrado que, embora o casamento pode ser livremente solúvel, a paternidade não é. Ao lidar com as questões mais difíceis no direito de família, este livro aponta para um caminho de reforma da lei que reconhece que a família permanece, apesar da separação dos pais, permitindo espaço para as pessoas a fazer um novo começo e priorizar a segurança de todos os interessados na tomada de decisões sobre parentalidade após a separação. Patrick Parkinson é um professor de Direito da Universidade de Sydney e especialista de renome internacional sobre direito de família. Ele desempenhou um papel importante na definição do direito de família na Austrália. Sua proposta para o estabelecimento de uma rede nacional de centros de relacionamento da família, feitas para o Primeiro-Ministro Australiano em 2004, tornou-se o centro de reformas do Governo australiano na área do direito de família. Ele também foi fundamental na reforma do sistema de apoio à criança e teve ampla participação em questões de direito de reforma em matéria de proteção da criança.

 

Skjørten, K. and Barlindhaug, R. (2007), “The Involvement of Children in Decisions About Shared Residence“, International Journal of
Law, Policy and the Family 21(3): 373-385.

Este artigo discute a relação entre lei e mudança social em conexão com o direito da criança de participar das decisões em matéria de residência. Os dados empíricos foram extraídos de uma pesquisa com pais que têm estabelecida a residência alternada para seus filhos. De acordo com pesquisas anteriores sobre a participação das crianças em disputas judiciais referente aos contatos e residência, os autores descobriram que a idade da criança é determinante quanto o grau de influência que eles têm em acordos privados. Mas, surpreendentemente, verificou-se que os níveis educacionais dos pais tiveram um grande impacto sobre a participação das crianças nas decisões sobre a residência alternada. Quando género foi controlado descobriu-se que pais altamente educados eram os menos prováveis de todos os pais para considerarem que a criança tinha sido tomada conta em todo o processo de codecisão. Este resultado pode adicionar uma nova dimensão à nossa compreensão da relação entre lei e mudança social. Professor Kristin Skjørten é pesquisador sénior do norueguês Norwegian Center for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies. Rolf Barlindhaug é Pesquisador Sénior do Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research.

 

Cashmore, J. (2010), ‘Children’s Participation in Family Law Decision-Making: Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Children’s Views’, Sydney Law School Research Paper
No. 10/89

Cashmore explora visões das crianças sobre o seu envolvimento no regime pós-separação que foram feitas em suas famílias e, através do processo judicial à luz de três modelos teóricos. Os três modelos incluem duas variantes da teoria da justiça processual – o instrumental e relacional – e conceptualização “Smart” de ética das crianças sobre o cuidado e ética do respeito. Existem até à data pouca investigação sobre a justiça processual especificamente com as crianças. Este documento também faz uma distinção entre vários aspetos da participação das crianças, um termo que carrega uma série de significados e é usado de várias maneiras. Em particular, examina as razões da criança para querer ser envolvida ou não, e a associação entre a quantidade do que as crianças pensaram que disseram, o quanto queriam dizer, e a perceção de justiça dos arranjos e sua felicidade em relação a eles.

 

Kelly J. B (1991). Examining Resistance To Joint Custody. In J
Folberg (Editor), Joint Custody and Shared Parenting. The Guildford
Press (2nd edition): New York pp 55-62.

Edward Kruk (2011): A Model Equal
Parental Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody
, The
American Journal of Family Therapy, 39:5, 375-389

A model rebuttable legal presumption of equal parental responsibility, defined as children spending equal amounts of time in each parent’s household, in contested child custody cases, is articulated.
This model, a unique hybrid of the “approximation standard” and a joint custody presumption, addresses the concerns of critics of each of these presumptions, and serves as a template for legislators and policymakers seeking to establish equal or shared parenting statutes within their jurisdictions. It also removes post-divorce family therapy from the shadows of the adversarial process. Contrary to the claims of equal parenting
opponents, it is argued that jurisdictions with shared parenting statutes
retaining the indeterminate
“best interests of the child” standard have fallen short of full implementation of equal parental responsibility, and that mounting empirical and public support for the presumption warrants a
more sustained effort in this regard.

Nielsen, Linda, Woozles: Their Role
in Custody Law Reform, Parenting Plans, and Family Court. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, Feb 10 , 2014

Mark Worthen, PsyD, Child custody lore: The
case of the runaway woozle, 2014

Warshak, R. A. (2000), BLANKET RESTRICTIONS. Family Court Review, 38: 422–445. doi: 10.1111/j.174-1617.2000.tb00583.x

Fifty moves a year: is
there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems
in children? J. Epidemiol. Community Health April 28, 2015 0:
jech-2014-205058v1-jech-2014-205058

Bergström, M., Fransson, E., Hjern, A., Köhler, L., & Wallby, T. (2014). Mental health in Swedish children living in joint physical custody and their parents’ life satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(5), 433–439. doi:10.1111/sjop.12148

Bergström M, Fransson E, Modin B, et al. . Fifty moves a year: is there an
association between
 joint physical custody and psychosomatic
problems in children?
.  J Epidemiol Community Health Published Online First: 2015;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-205058 

Brunet F., Kertudo P., Malsan S.,
2008, Étude sociologique sur la résidence en alternance des enfants de parents séparés, Dossiers d’études, Caisse nationale des Allocations familiales, n° 109 

Turunen J. Shared physical custody and children’s experience of stress. Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America. New Orleans, USA: The Population Association of America, 2013

Sara Brolin Låftman, Malin Bergström, Bitte Modin,Viveca Östberg; Joint physical custody,
turning to parents for emotional support, and subjective health: A study of
adolescents in Stockholm
, Sweden Scand J Public Health July 2014
42: 456-462, first published on March 24, 2014 doi:10.1177/1403494814526798

Juby HLBC, Marcil-Gratton N: Sharing roles, sharing custody? Couples’ characteristics and children’s living arrangements at separation. J Marriage Fam 2005, 67(1):157-172

Effects of Divorce and Cohabitation Dissolution on Preschoolers’ Literacy Journal of Family Issues April 1,
2013 34: 460-483

Melli M, Brown PR: Exploring a
new family form- The shared time family
.
Int J Law Policy Fam
2008, 22:231-269

Weston R, Qu L, Gray M,
De Maio J, Kaspiew R, Moloney L, Hand K: Shared care time: an increasingly
common arrangement, Australian institute of family studies
.
Family
Matters
2011, 88:51-56

Jennifer E. Lansford, Parental Divorce and Children’s Adjustment, Perspectives on Psychological Science,
March 2009; vol. 4, 2: pp. 140-152.

Swiss L, Le Bourdais C: Father-child
contact after separation. The influence of living arrangements
.
J
Fam Issues
2009, 30(5):623-652

Legislating for Shared
Time Parenting after Separation: A Research Review
Int J Law Policy Family
(2011) 25 (3): 318-337

Kelly JB: Children’s living arrangements following separation and divorce: insights from empirical and clinical research. Fam Process 2007, 46:35-52

Gilmore, Stephen; Contact/Shared
Residence and Child Well-Being: Research Evidence and its Implications for
Legal Decision-Making
,  Int J Law Policy Family (December 2006)
20 (3): 344-365 first published online August 24, 2006
doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebl016

Relocation of children after divorce and children’s best interests: New evidence and legal considerations. Braver, Sanford L.; Ellman,
Ira M.; Fabricius, William V. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 17(2), Jun
2003, 206-219
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.2.206

Relocation cases, in which a divorced parent seeks to move away with the child, are among the knottiest problems facing family courts. The recent trend is to permit such moves, largely because of Wallerstein’s (1995) controversial amica curiae brief, which a recent court (Baures v. Lewis, 2001) interpreted as supporting the conclusion that “in general, what is good for the custodial parent is good for the child” (p. 222). The current study provides the first direct evidence on relocation by dividing college students into groups on the basis of their divorced parents’ move-away status. On most child outcomes, the ones whose parents moved are significantly disadvantaged. This suggests courts should give greater weight to the child’s separate interests in deciding such cases. 

McIntosh J, Smyth B, Wells Y, Long C: Post-separation parenting
arrangements and developmental outcomes for infants and children.
In Collected
reports
. Victoria, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies; 2010

Carlsund A, Eriksson U, Sellström E: Shared physical custody
after family split-up: implications for health and well-being in Swedish
schoolchildren.
Acta Paediatricia 2012, 102(3):318-323.

Pryor J and Rodgers B
(2001) Children in changing families: life after parental separation.
Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd

BACK TO THE BEST
INTERESTS
.
OF THE CHILD. 2nd Edition. TOWARDS A REBUTTABLE. PRESUMPTION OF
JOINT RESIDENCE.
Yuri Joakimidis (paper
combined with the Joint Parenting Association)

Arendell T (1996) Coparenting:
a review of the literature National center on Fathers and families
,
Philadelphia.

Benjamin M and irving H H
(1989) Shared Parenting: critical review of the research literature Family
and Conciliation Courts Review
27(2) 21-35.

On laughter and loss: Children’s views of shared time, parenting and security post-separation Childhood, (2015) 0
(2015): 0907568215570072v1-907568215570072

The Equality Rights of
Parents and the Protection of the Best Interests of the Child after Partnership
Breakdown in Spain,
Int J Law Policy Family (2012) 26 (3): 378-400

Åsa Carlsund , Ulrika Eriksson , Petra Löfstedt , Eva Sellström, Risk behaviour in Swedish
adolescents: is shared physical custody after divorce a risk or a protective
factor?
, Eur J Public Health (2013) 23 (1): 3-8 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cks011 First published online: 1 March 2012 (6
pages)

Cabrita, Maria João (2014). Residência alternada. Uma questão de particular importância na salvaguarda do superior interesse dos filhos em caso de não coabitação do pai e da mãe. Tese de Mestrado em Ciências Jurídico-Forenses, FDUL

Cadolle S., 2011, « Partages entre pères et mères pour la résidence en alternance des enfants et recomposition des rôles de genre », in Agnès Martial, Belleau Hélène, Aimer et compter ? Droits et pratiques des solidarités conjugales. Presses de l’université de Québec, 163-181.

Céroux B., 2004, Père et enfant dans la construction de l’identité paternelle, thèse de doctorat de sociologie sous la direction de François de Singly, université Paris Descartes 

Céroux B., 2014, « Paternité au quotidien et résidence alternée », Politiques sociales et familiales, n°117, pp. 17-28

Bruce S. McEwen, Physiology
and Neurobiology of Stress and Adaptation: Central Role of the Brain

Physiological Reviews Jul 2007, 87 (3) 873-904; DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00041.2006

Elkin, Meyer (1991):
Joint Custody: In the Best Interest of the Family. In: Folberg (Hrsg.) (1991),
S. 11 -15.

Australian Institute of Family Studies (2003) Submission of the AIFS to
the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs
Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the Event of family Separation
.
AIFS, Melbourne.

Parkinson P and Smyth B (2003) When
the Difference is Night and Day: some empirical insights into patterns of
parent-child contact after separation.
8th Australian Institute of Family
Studies Conference.

Oberg B & G, (1985) ,
Den Delade Familjen, Stockholm.Kelly J (1988), Longer-term adjustment in
children of divorce
, Journal of family Psychology 2 (2) 119-140.

Bauserman R (2002), Child
adjustment in joint custody versus sole-custody arrangements: a meta-analytic
review
. Journal of Family Psychology 2002, Vol 16 No 1, 91-102.

Bergström et al.: Living
in two homes-a Swedish national survey of wellbeing in 12 and 15 year olds with
joint physical custody
. BMC Public Health 2013 13:868.

Amato P R and Gilbreth J G (1999) Nonresidential fathers and children’s well-being: a meta-analysis Journal of Marriage and
the Family 61 557-573.

Dunn J (2003) Contact and children’s perspectives on parental relationships
In A Bainham et al (eds) Children and their families: contact, rights and
welfare. Oxford, Hart Publishing.

Fay R. E (1985). Joint Custody of
Infants and Toddlers.
Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. 19(8): 134-139

Grotzinger J B Dual household joint custody and adolescent
separation-individuation
, Dissertation for the Faculty of California
Graduate Institute July 2002.

Smyth B, Caruana C &
Ferro A (2004) Father-child contact after separation: profiling five
different patterns of care
. Family Matters No 67 Autumn 2004.

Smyth, Bruce & Weston,
Ruth (2004): The attitudes of separated mothers and fathers to 50/50
shared care.
Family Matters, Vol. 67, 8 – 15.

Laumann-Billings L & Emery RE
(2000), Distress among young adults from divorced families, Journal
of Family Psychology, 14:671-687.

Burgess A & Russell G
(2003) in Supporting Fathers: contributions from the International
Fatherhood Summit
, Oxford UK.

Smart C (2002), From Children’s shoes to Children’s Voices, Family Court Review, Vol40 No 3,
July 2002, 307-319.

Smyth B, Caruana C and Ferro A (2003) Some when shows and whys of shared
care: what separated parents who spend equal time with their children say about
shared parenting
.
Australian
Social Policy Conference 2003.

Sarieg, José Luis (2010), La custodia compartida en Estados Unidos, Revista Digital de Direcho de Familia, Sevilha – Espanha

Kaltenborn K (2004) Parent-Child Contact after Divorce: the need to consider the child’s perspective.
Marriage and family review 36 (1) 67-90.

Hunt J (2003) Researching
Contact London: National Council for One-Parent Families
.

Neale B, Flowerdew J
& Smart C (2003) Drifting Towards Shared Residence? Report from Centre
for Research on Family
, Kinship and Childhood (Leeds), Family Law, December
2003 904-908.

Pruett M K, Ebling R & Isabella G (2004) Critical aspects of
parenting Plans for Young Children: injecting data into the debate about
overnights
, Family Courts Review Vol 42, No 1, January, 35-59.

Kelly J B & Lamb M E
(2000) Using child development research to make appropriate custody and
access decisions for young children
, Family and Conciliation Courts Review,
39, 297-311.

Lamb M E & Kelly J B
(2001), Using the empirical literature to guide the development of parenting
plans for young children
, Family Court review, Vol 39, No 4, 365-371.

Acção de formação no Centro de Estudos Judiciários sobre “Novos modelos e tendências na regulação do exercício das responsabilidades parentais – a residência alternada” (1 de Junho de 2012)

Joint custodians’ relative involvement in child care and interparental hostility as correlates of child adjustment after divorce; Lichtenstein, Israel, University of Cincinnati, (1990)
Dissertation 207pps (abstract)

Joint custody (leaflet); AFCC, Association of
Family and Conciliation Courts
, (1984)

Joint custody and shared parenting: research and
interventions; Pruett, Marsha Kline; Hoganbruen, Kathy, Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Clinics of North America
, [1998] 7 (2) p 273-294

Joint custody and the preschool child; McKinnon,
Rosemary; Wallerstein, Judith, in Folberg (ed) “Joint Custody and Shared Parenting” Guilford (1991), p 153-166

Joint custody as an interpretation of the best
interests of the child in critical and comparative perspective; Kurki-Suonio,
Kirsty, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, (2000) 14
(3) p 183-205

Joint Custody factpack; Cannon, David, FNF,
(1988)

Joint custody is not for everyone; Gardner,
Richard A, in Folberg (ed) “Joint Custody and Shared Parenting” Guilford
(1991), p 88-96

Joint custody revisited; Richards, Martin P M, Fam
Law
, (1989) p 83-85

Joint custody through mediation: a longitudinal
assessment of children; Brotsky, Muriel; Steinman, Susan: Zemmelman, Steven, in
Folberg (ed) “Joint Custody and Shared Parenting” Guilford (1991), p
167-176

Joint custody, feminism, and the dependency
dilemma; Bartlett, Katharine T; Stack, Carol B, in Folberg (ed) “Joint Custody and Shared Parenting” Guilford (1991), p 63-87

Joint custody: a critical analysis and appraisal;
Derdeyn, Andre, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, (1984) 54 (2) p
199-209

Joint custody: a family court judge’s perspective; Hardcastle, Gerald, Family Law Quarterly, (1998) 32
(1) p 201-219

Joint custody: a simplistic solution; Felner,
Robert D; Terre, Lisa, CD-ROM, (1987)

Joint custody: affirming that parents and
families are forever; Elkin, Meyer, Social Work, (1987) p 18-24

Joint custody: an idea whose time has come;
Robinson, Holly L, Journal of Family Law, (1982-3) 21 p 641-685

Joint custody: historical, legal and clinical
perspectives with emphasis on the situation in Canada; Fidler, BJ et al, Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry
, (1989) 34 (6) p 561-568 abstract

Joint custody: in the best interest of the
family; Elkin, Meyer, in Folberg (ed) “Joint Custody and Shared Parenting”
Guilford (1991), p 11-15

Joint custody: research, theory and policy;
Coller, David R, Family Process, (1988) 27 p 459 abstract

Joint custody: the option of choice; Bender,
William N, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, (1994) 21 (3/4) p 115-131

Joint custody; Miller, David J, Family Law
Quarterly
, (1979) XIII (3) p 345-413

Joint parenting systems: the English experiment;
Hoggett, Brenda, Journal of Child Law, (1994) 6 (1) p 8-11

Joint physical custody: an exploration of
successful coparenting arrangements; Underwood, Laura Jo, University of
Toledo
, (1990) Dissertation (abstract)

Judicial alienation syndrome – failures to respond to post-separation violence; Humphreys, Catherine, Fam Law,
(1999) p 313-316

Judicial attitudes to contact and shared
residence since the Children Act 1989; Weyland, Ines, Journal of Social
Welfare and Family Law
, (1995) 17 (4) p 445-459

Just a pawn?; Thompson, A, Community Care,
(1996) 7 p 18-19

Leave to remove – analysis of authorities; Hickman, David C, Fam Law, [2000] p 275-276 (letter)

Legal and educational interventions for families
in residence and contact disputes; Kelly, Joan B, Australian Journal of
Family Law
, [2001] 15 (2) p 92-113

Legal and psychological management of cases with
an alienated child; Sullivan, Matthew J; Kelly, Joan B, Family Court Review,
(2001) 39 (3) p 299-315

Legal and psychotherapeutic approaches to the
three types of parental alienation syndrome families: when psychiatry and the
law join forces; Gardner, Richard, Court Review, (1991) Spring p 14-21

Legal custody arrangements and children’s economic welfare; Seltzer, Judith A, American Journal of Sociology,
(1991) 96 (4) p 895-929

Legal recognition of the parental alienation
syndrome; Palmer, Nancy R, The American Journal of Family Therapy,
(1988) 16 (4) p 361-363

Life stories, doctrines, and decision making – three high courts confront the move-away dilemma; Shear, Leslie Ellen, Family
and Conciliation Courts Review
, (1996) 34 (4) p 439-458

Life-span adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce; Amato, Paul R, The Future of Children, (1994) 4
(1) p 144-164

Litigants in person in contested cases in the
family court; Hunter, Rosemary, Australian Journal of Family Law, (1998)
12 p 171-178

Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on
children in Great Britain and the United States; Cherlin, Andrew J;
Furstenberg, Frank F et al, Science, (1991) 252 p 1386-1389

Long-term follow-up of a court-based intervention
for divorcing parents; Kramer, Laurie; Kowal, Amanda, Family and
Conciliation Courts Review
, (1998) 36 (4) p 452-465

Love in a cold climate – section 8 applications under the Children Act 1989; Pearce, Julia; Davis, Gwynn; Barron, Jacqueline, Fam Law, (1999) p 22-28

Maintaining the connection: parenting as a
non-custodial father; Wall, Jack C, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,
(1992) 9 (5) p 441-456

Making contact work; Wicherek, Ann Marie, Fam
Law
, [2003] p 350-353

Making decisions about children after parental
separation; Pryor, Jan; Seymour, Fred, Child and Family Law Quarterly,
(1996) 8 (3) p 229-242

Making the best use of outside experts in private
law cases; Cantwell, Brian, Fam Law, [2002] p 540-547

Money isn’t everything. Fiscal policy and family policy in the Child Support Act; Clarke, Karen; Craig, Gary; Glendinning, Caroline, Social Policy and Administration, (1995) 29 (1) p 26

New Zealand’s family court – reflections for the Family Law Act of England and Wales; Roberts, M, International Journal
of Law Policy and the Family
, (1997) 11 (2) p 246-269

No more of the ‘no order’ principle; Phillimore, Sarah; Drane, Amanda, Fam Law, (1999) p 40-42

Non resident fathers in Britain; Bradshaw,
Jonathan; Stimson, Carol; Williams, Julie; Skinner, Christine, Social Policy Research Unit – University of York, (1997) 13 March

Non-child support expenditures on children by
nonresidential divorced fathers: results of a study; Fabricius, William V;
Braver, Sanford L, Family Court Review, [2003] 41 (3) p 321-336

Noncustodial fathers and their impact on the
children of divorce; Lamb, Michael E, in Thompson, Ross A; Amato, Paul R (eds) “The post divorce family: children, parenting, and society”; Sage (1999), p
105-125

Noncustodial fathers speak about their parental
role; Dudley, James, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, (1996) 34
(3) p 410-426

Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: a meta analysis; Amato, Paul R; Gilbreth, Joan G, Journal of Marriage and
the Family
, (1999) 61 (3) p 557-573

Nonresident mothers’ and fathers’ social contact with children; Stewart, Susan D, Journal of Marriage and the Family,
(1999) 61 p 894-907

Nonresidential parent-child relationships
following divorce and remarriage: a longitudinal perspective; Bray, James H;
Berger, Sandra H, in Depner, Bray (eds) “Nonresidential Parenting: new vistas in family living” Sage (1993), p 156-181

Nonresidential parenting: multidimensional
approaches in research, policy and practice; Depner, Charlene E; Bray, James H,
in Depner, Bray (eds) “Nonresidential Parenting: new vistas in family living” Sage (1993), p 182-201

Notes of a discussion on the Children Act 1989 at
UEA 3rd March 1994: Judge Hyam and District Judge Royall; Cannon, David, ,
(1994)

Objects of concern? – children and divorce; Smart, Carol; Wade, Amanda; Neale, Bren, Child and Family Law Quarterly,
(1999) 12 (4) p365-376

On the trail of the welfare principle; Davis,
Gwynn; Pearce, Julia, Fam Law, (1999) p 144-148

Ongoing post-divorce conflict in families
contesting custody: do joint custody and frequent access help?; Johnston, Janet
R; Kline, Marsha; Tschann, Jeanne M, in Folberg (ed) “Joint Custody and Shared Parenting” Guilford (1991), p 177-184

Ongoing post-divorce conflict: effects on
children of joint custody and frequent access; Johnston, Janet R; Kline,
Marsha; Tschann, Jeanne M, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
(1989) 59 (4) p 576-592

Opposing contact; Parker, Judith; Eaton, Deborah,
Fam Law, (1994) p 636

Out of sight but not out of mind: increasing
options for access.; Stone, Nigel, Fam Law, (1988) p 216-219

Out of the maze: pathways to the future for families experiencing
separation; Dewar, John, Australian Journal of Family Law, [2001] 15 (3)
p 191-214

Roman M, Haddad W. The
Disposable Parent: The Case For Joint Custody. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New
York (1978)

Sünderhauf, Hildegund (2013): Wechselmodell: Psychologie – Recht – Praxis. Wiesbaden: Springer VS

Sara B. Låftman, Malin Bergström, Bitte Modin, Viveca Östberg, Joint physical custody, turning
to parents for emotional support, and subjective health: A study of adolescents
in Stockholm, Sweden
, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health (24 March
2014), doi:10.1177/1403494814526798

Shared Physical Custody:
Summary of 40 Studies on Outcomes for Children, Linda Nielsen, Journal of
Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 55, Iss. 8, 2014

The use and abuse of social science research evidence in children’s cases. Cashmore, Judith; Parkinson, Patrick Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 20(3), Aug 2014, 239-250.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000010

Woozles: Their role in custody law reform, parenting plans, and family
court. Nielsen, Linda, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 20(2), May 2014,
164-180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000004

A. Luepnitz. Maternal, paternal and joint custody: A study of families
after

divorce. Doctoral thesis 1980. State University of New York at Buffalo. UMI
No. 80-27618.

Luepnitz studied single parent custody and joint custody. Most single parent children were dissatisfied with the amount of visitation they had, whereas the children of joint custody arrangements seemed reasonably happy with their exposure to both their parents. The quality of the parent-child relationship was determined to be better  for joint custody. (The ncp-child relationship is described as more like an aunt or uncle – child relationship.)


S.A. Nunan. Joint custody versus single custody effects on child
development.

Doctoral thesis 1980. California School of Professional Psychology,
Berkeley, UMI

No. 81-10142

Nunan compared 20 joint custody children (ages 7-11) with 20 agematched
children in sole maternal custody. All families were at least two years after
separation or divorce. Joint custody children were found to have higher ego
strengths, superego strengths and self-esteem than the single custody children.
The joint custody  children were also found to be less excitable and less
impatient than their sole custody counterparts. For children under four at the
time of separation the differences were very small.


B. Welsh-Osga. The effects of custody arrangements on children of divorce.
Doctoral thesis 1981. University of South Dakota. UMI No. 82-6914.

Welsh-Osga compared children in intact families with joint custody and
single custody families.
Age range 4 1/2 to 10 years old. Children from joint custody were found to be
more satisfied with the time spent with both parents. Parents in joint custody
were found to be more involved with their children. (Joint custody parents
found to be less overburdened by parenting responsibilities than sole custody
parents.) Children from all four groups (intact families, sole maternal, sole
paternal, joint custody) were found to be equally well adjusted by their
various standardized measures.


D.B. Cowan. Mother Custody versus Joint Custody: Children`s
parental Relationship and Adjustment. Doctoral Thesis 1982. University of
Washington.UMI No. 82-18213.

Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal)
custody families. Children in joint physical custody were rated as better
adjusted by their mothers compared with children of sole custody mothers.
The children`s perceptions in sole custody situations correlated with the
amount of time spent with their father!
The more time children from sole maternal custody spent with their fathers, the
more accepting BOTH parents were perceived to be, and the more
well-adjusted were the children.

E.G. Pojman. Emotional Adjustment of Boys in Sole and Joint
Custody compared with Adjustment of Boys in Happy and Unhappy Marriages.
Doctoral thesis 1982. California Graduate Institute. UMI No. ?

Pojman compared children in the age range 5 to 13 years old. Boys in
joint custody were significantly better adjusted than boys in sole
maternal custody. Comparing boys in all groups, boys in joint custody
compared very similarly to boys from happy families.


E.B. Karp. Children`s adjustment in joint and single custody: An
Empirical Study. Doctoral thesis 1982. California school of professional
psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 83-6977.

Age range of children 5 to 12 years, studying early period
of separation or divorce. Boys and girls in sole custody situation had
more negative involvement with their parents than in joint custody
situation. There was in increase reported in sibling rivalry reported for sole
custody children when visiting their father (ncp). Girls in joint custody
reported to have significantly higher self-esteem than girls in sole
custody.


D.A. Luepnitz. Child Custody: A Study of Families after Divorce.
Lexington Books 1982.

A summary of the thesis in book form. J.A. Livingston. Children after
Divorce: A Psychosocial analysis of the effects of custody on self esteem.
Doctoral thesis 1983. University of Vermont. UMI No. 83-26981. Comparative
study of children in mother sole custody, father sole custody, joint
custody with mother primary, joint custody with father primary. Children in
joint custody situations were found to be better adjusted than children in
sole custody situations.


L.P. Noonan. Effects of long-tern conflict on personality functioning of
children of divorce. Doctoral thesis 1984. The Wright Institute Graduate
School of Psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 84-17931.

Long-term effects were studied in joint custody, sole maternal custody
and intact families. Children in joint custody families were found to be
more active than in sole custody families or intact families. In
low conflict situations children did better (demonstrated less withdrawal)
than in either sole custody or intact families.


V. Shiller. Joint and Maternal Custody: The outcome for boys aged 6-11
and their parents. Doctoral thesis 1984. University of Delaware. UMI No.
85-11219.


The thesis compares 20 boys in joint custody with 20 matched boys in sole
maternal custody. A number of tests were used. Boys from a joint custody
environment were found to be better adjusted than boys from a sole custody
environment.

Joint Custody and Shared Parenting. (Collection of Papers) Published by
Bureau of National Affairs, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.
Ed. Jay Folberg. 1984

M.R. Patrician. The effects of legal child-custody status on persuasion
strategy choices and communication goals of fathers. Doctoral Thesis 1984.
University of San Francisco. UMI No. 85-14995.

90 fathers were questioned regarding how unequal recognition of
parental rights might encourage conflict. Joint legal custody was found to
encourage parental cooperation and dis-courage self-interest. Sole custody in
both  custodial AND non-custodial status encouraged punishment-oriented
persuasion strategies. Unequal custody power was perceived as inhibiting
parental cooperation by BOTH parents.


G.M. Bredefeld. Joint Custody and Remarriage: its effects on
marital adjustment and children. Doctoral Thesis. California School of
Professional Psychology, Fresno. UMI No. 85-10926

Both sole and joint custody children adjusted well to the remarriage
of their parent; no significant difference found between the groups. The
parents of joint custody situations, however, expressed more
satisfaction with their children and indicated that they appreciated the
time alone with their new spouse. Sole custody children also reported seeing
their father less often after remarriage of the mother; this did not
happen in joint custody situations.


B.H. Granite. An investigation of the relationships among self-concept,
parental behaviors, and the adjustment of children in different living
arrangements following a marital separation and/or divorce. Doctoral
thesis 1985. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. UMI No. 85-23424.

Parents in sole custodial homes (both maternal and paternal) were
perceived as using psychological pressure techniques to control children.
e.g. inducing guilt. However, in joint custody homes, the perception of
the children was that such techniques were seldom used. No difference in
self-concept was detectable among the different homes. Children`s ages
9-12 years. 15 joint, 15 maternal sole, 15 paternal sole.


S. Handley. The experience of the child in sole and joint custody.

Doctoral thesis 1985. California Graduate School of Marriage and
Family Therapy. Joint custody children more satisfied than sole custody
children.


S.M.H.Hanson. Healthy single parent families. Family Relations v.35,
p.125-132, 1985
.

21 joint custody and 21 sole custody families compared. Mothers in
joint custody found in better mental health. Mothers with sole custody
sons had the least amount of social support and mothers with joint custody
of sons had the most. Joint custody mothers reported best child-parent
problem solving of all.

S. A. Wolchik, S. L. Braver
and I.N. Sandler. J. of Clinical Child Psych. Vol. 14, p.5-10, 1985. Self-esteem found higher in children of
joint custody.

Children in joint custody report significantly more positive experiences
than children of sole maternal custody.

P. M. Raines. (Misplaced reference) Paper describes a survey of 1,200+ children whose parents are in process of divorcing. Children wishing to live with both parents given as a function of age: under age 8, 90%; age 8 – 10, 76%, age 10 – 12, 44%. 1985 paper.

J. Pearson and N. Thoennes.
The Judges Journal, Winter, 1986. Will this Divorced Woman Receive Support? Your
Custody Decision may determine the Answer
.

Child support compared among sole custody and joint custody. Joint custody
shown to produce much better compliance in child support payments to the
mother.

J.S. Wallerstein and R.
McKinnon. Joint Custody and the Preschool Child. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, v.4, p.169-183, 1986.

This paper presents joint custody for young children in a negative light,
however, it is based on descriptive research not comparative research, having
no control or comparison group.

E.E. Maccoby, R.H. Mnookin and
C.E. Depner. Post-divorce families: Custodial arrangements compared. American
Association of Science, Philadelphia. May 1986.

Mothers with joint custody were found to be more satisfied, when compared
with mothers in sole custody situation.

P. M. Raines. Joint custody and the right to travel: legal and
psychological implications. J. of Family Law, v. 24, 625-656, 1986

P. Neubauer. Reciprocal effects of fathering on parent and child. Men
Growing Up. (1986)


J. Schaub. Joint Custodu After Divorce: Views and Attitudes of Mental
Health Professionals and Writers. Rutgers University, Doctoral Thesis.
1986. No. 86-14559


V. Shiller. Joint versus maternal families with latency age boys: Parent
characteristics and child adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
v. 56, p. 486-9, 1986.

Interviews with boys as well as with both parents. Age group 6-11. Found
boys from joint custody families better adjusted than comparison group of boys
from sole maternal custody families.

M.B. Isaacs, G.H. Leon and M. Kline. When is a parent out of the picture?
Different custody, different perceptions. Family Process, v.26, p.101-110,
1987.

This study compares children from five groups: joint physical custody,
joint-legal maternalphysical, joint-legal paternal-physical, sole maternal and
sole paternal custody. On their measurement of how children perceive the
importance of family members, sole custody children were three times mores
likely to omit one parent than joint custody situations.

F.S. Williams. Child Custody and Parental Cooperation. American Bar Assn,
Family Law, August 1987.

Williams studied high-conflict, high-risk situations. He found that
children in sole custody (typically but not exclusively maternal) much more
likely to be subject to parental kidnapping and/or physical harm. He found that
high-conflict families do better and are more likely to learn cooperative
behavior when given highly detailed orders from the judge.


CRC Report: R-103A. Synopses of Sole and Joint Custody Studies. Shows that
the preponderance of research supports the presumption that joint custody
is in the best interests of children. 1987.
A GOOD REVIEW PAPER: J.B. Kelly. Longer term adjustment in children
of divorce: Converging Findings and Implications for Practice. Journal of
Family Psychology, v.2, p.112-140, 1988.

M. Zaslow. Sex Differences in children`s response to parental divorce.
Paper 1. Research methodology and postdivorce family forms. American J.
of Orthopsychiatry. v.58, 355, 1988. Paper 2. Samples, Variables, Ages and
Sources.


Am. J. Orthopsychiatry, v.59, p118, 1989. J.S. Wallerstein and S.
Blakeslee. Second chances: Men, women and children after divorce. New
York,Ticknor and Fields. 1989

M. Kline, J.M. Tschann, J.R. Johnson and J.S. Wallerstein. Children`s
adjustment in joint and sole custody families. Developmental Psychology,
v. 25, p. 430-435, 1989.

This work finds that in non-conflicted joint and sole custody families there is little measurable difference between a child`s behavior in sole or joint custody. (Strangely, this paper states “Some quantitative studies have found no differences in symptomatology between joint and sole custody children”, citing work by Luepnitz and also Wolchik, Braver and Sandler. However, Luepnitz pointed out that joint custody children retain a more normal parent-child relationship than sole custody children, Wolchik et al found that joint custody children have significantly more positive experiences and higher self-esteem than sole custody counter-parts!) Lehrman paper Study of 90 children, equally divided between joint physical, jointlegal maternal, and sole maternal custody. Sole custody children shown to have greater self-hate and perceived more rejection from their fathers. Joint physical and joint legal custody children suffered fewer emotional problems than sole custody children. 1990 paper, have mis-placed reference.

L.M.C. Bisnaire, P.Firestone and D. Rynard. Factors associated with
academic achievement in children following parent separation
.
American J. of Orthopsychiatry. v.60(1), p.67-76, 1990

Visitation found to be a most significant factor in enabling children to
maintain pre-divorce academic standards.

J. Pearson and N. Thoennes. Custody after divorce: Demographic and
attitudinal patterns.
American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, v.60(2), p. 233-249, 1990.

Regular visitation shown to be significant in a number of factors
explaining positive adjustment patterns.

Brunet F.,
Kertudo P., Malsan S., 2008, Étude sociologique sur la résidence en alternance des enfants de parents séparés, Dossiers d’études, Caisse nationale des Allocations familiales, n° 109 

Cadolle S., 2011, « Partages entre pères et mères pour la résidence en alternance des enfants et recomposition des rôles de genre », in Agnès Martial, Belleau Hélène, Aimer et compter ? Droits et pratiques des solidarités conjugales. Presses de l’université de Québec, 163-181.

Céroux B., 2004, Père et enfant dans la construction de l’identité paternelle, thèse de doctorat de sociologie sous la direction de François de Singly, université Paris Descartes 

Céroux B., 2014, « Paternité au quotidien et résidence alternée », Politiques sociales et familiales, n°117, pp. 17-28. 

Domingo P., 2013, « Les modalités de résidence des enfants de parents séparés », L’e-ssentiel, n° 139 

Guillonneau M., Moreau C., 2013, « La résidence des enfants de parents séparés. De la demande des parents à la décision du juge. Exploitation des décisions définitives rendues par les juges aux affaires familiales au cours de la période comprise entre le 4 juin et le 15 juin 2012 », Rapport 

Hachet B., 2014, « Les calendriers et les agendas de la résidence alternée. Structure te plasticité des territoires temporels des parents », Politiques sociales
et familiales
, n°117, 29-44. 

Kesteman N., 2007, « La résidence alternée : bref état des lieux des connaissances sociojuridiques», Recherches et Prévisions, n°89, pp. 80-86. 

Martial A., 2013, « Des pères « absents » aux pères « quotidiens » : représentations et discours sur la paternité dans l’après-divorce », Informations sociales, 2013/2, n° 176, 36-43. 

Neyrand, G. (2014). La résidence alternée ou le défi de la coparentalité. Politiques
sociales et familiales
, Vol.117, nº 1, pp. 5-15 

Rebourg M., 2011, « Les incidences de la résidence alternée sur la contribution de l’entretien à l’éducation de l’enfant mineur », in Agnès Martial, Belleau Hélène, Aimer et compter ? Droits et pratiques des solidarités conjugales. Presses de l’université de Québec, 183-202. 

Singly de F., Décup Pannier B., 2000, « Avoir une chambre chez chacun de ses parents séparés », in Singly de F., 2000, Libres ensemble, l’individualisme dans la vie commune, Paris, Pocket, 353-382.

Toulemon L., Denoyelle T., 2012, « La définition des ménages dans les enquêtes françaises : comment tenir compte des multi-residences ? », Actes des journées de méthodologie statistique 

Toulemon L., Pennec S., 2010, Multi-residence
in France and Australia: Why count them? What is at stake? Double counting and
actual family situations
, Demographic Research, n° 23, 1, pp.1-40 

Voléry I., 2011, « Le couple relationnel à l’épreuve des partages financiers, séparation conjugale, entretien de l’enfant et inégalités sexuées », in Agnès Martial, Belleau Hélène, Aimer et
compter ?
Droits et pratiques des solidarités conjugales. Presses de l’université de Québec, 204-223.

A ASSOCIAÇÃO PORTUGUESA PELA IGUALDADE PARENTAL E DIREITOS DOS FILHOS tem por fim as actividades de carácter cívico, cultural, formativo e informativo, no âmbito da protecção e fomento da igualdade parental, nos seus diferentes níveis de intervenção – legislativo, jurídico, psicológico, mobilização da opinião pública, entre outros -, relativamente aos direitos dos filhos (crianças e adolescentes) cujos pais se encontrem separados ou divorciados.