The Governor, read in the Throne Speech that Government intends to implement mediation as a prerequisite for couples to co-parent after separation/divorce. We at ChildWatch would like to clarify that mediation is already enacted in the “Children’s Amendment Act 2002” under section 36F (2 b). Why, eleven years later, are we still having the same problems? We feel that mediation has not worked effectively since 2002 as was intended. We further believe that any other solution than “Shared Parenting” would not assist our “children’s best interest” as is the intended purpose.

Some outstanding revelations by researcher, Dr Professor Roland Proksch from the University of Nuremburg, Germany, by request of the Ministry of Justice, to do a study on “Shared Parenting” families. Professor Proksch revealed four key benefits as findings in the “Ministry for Justice Study”, namely: 1) Joint parental custody integrates children and parents, 2) Secures their maintenance, 3) Provides mothers with more opportunities to work, [and] 4) Sole parental custody excludes the disposed parent and puts the right of the children to both parents in jeopardy.”

Professor Proksch states that “The results of the study are telling,” and he proved the fact that it was not a conflict of “mothers against fathers”, but conflicts arising between two parents with whom their children live and those with whom their children do not live. He further states: “It is extraordinarily striking that there are considerable conflicts in those cases of divorce in which one parent has obtained sole custody and the other has not.” Dr Proksch is convinced that the “disposal” of one parent by the sole act of transferring sole custody to the other gives rise to considerable tensions. He further states “…. because if joint parental custody is obtained, there isn’t a “loser”, and “particularly when there is parental conflict, Joint custody is clearly better: it benefits the children”.

This was also echoed by British Columbia (Canada), Dr Edward Kruk’s study on “Shared Parenting”, which reveals that “Shared Parenting” tends to lessen tensions between parents and he dispels any myths from the opponents that say that conflict will increase with “Shared Parenting”. This is beneficial for children and will increase better outcomes for them and their families. On the other hand, Dr Kruk further states that the “….adversarial nature of the legal system, post-divorce polarises parents and exacerbates hostilities and conflict. The legal processes not only exacerbate parental conflict, they often create an atmosphere of hostility in case where relatively amicable negotiation may have taken place.” Dr Edward Kruk, (1991) in the Journal of Family Therapy.

Further, Dr Proksch’s findings were even clear when courts mandated some of the unwilling couples to “shared parenting”, thus, it was discovered that great benefits were experienced. Even, the German CSA payments exceed the levels of ninety-three percent where fathers having joint/shared custody, which was confirmed by mothers.

In addition, with sole custody, the non-custodial parent is shoved out of the child’s life by the other parent, thus, the non-custodial parent feels less necessary to the child, which works in the opposite to what is in the “best interest of the child”. Therefore, we urge the Bermuda Government to implement “Shared Parenting” as it is beneficial for children, their parents, and the society of Bermuda.

Edward Tavares

Co-founder ChildWatch