Thursday, 22 November 2012

Bias in family law... and articles about bias... *sigh*

A piece in the Huffington Post today by Somaya Ouzzani...
"Being a mother does not entitle you to have a monopoly over your child But that said, we need to be realistic and respectful of previous caring patterns. Acknowledging the importance of not disrupting a well-functioning child-care arrangement, which empirically sees a child develop its primary attachments to its mother; the primary carer, just to satisfy a non-resident parent, usually the father, is of critical importance."
 ...our comment

... and the assumption that mums are primary carers no longer bears scrutiny.

The assumption that persists is that mum is the primary carer when parents separate.

Later on, dear Somaya argues that "[shared parenting] does not mean an entitlement to a child's residence being equally split between two homes nor should it be synonymous with shared residence in any manifestation."

Hang on a second... earlier you said that it should... because it DOES normally reflect the child-care arrangements before separation (at least according to fact... rather than your assumptions!). 

We feel there should be presumptions (of shared parenting in law)... but are happy to see the back of assumptions (such as Somaya's). The primary attachment to mother assumption which she raises from the 1950s...

When Ms Ouzzani's views reflect parenting in the current millennium, they may become more relevant!