Advancing the Shared Parenting Debate, One Step at a Time: Responses to the Commentaries

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12085
• Published date: 01 April 2014
• Author: Marsha Kline Pruett,J. Herbie DiFonzo
• Date: 01 April 2014

GUEST EDITORS’ RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTARIES

ADVANCING THE SHARED PARENTING DEBATE, ONE STEP AT A

TIME: RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTARIES

Marsha Kline Pruett and J. Herbie DiFonzo

It is gratifying to see that the spirited debate that ensued at the Think Tank remains enlivened in the

commentaries. These additional perspectives weresupplied by several experts and committed profes-

sionals akin to those who participated in the Think Tank.1We wish to thank all of the commentators

for thoughtful analyses of what did,and did not, happen at the Think Tank. Each commentary provided

a frame of reference useful to us, as the Reporters, in reflecting upon what was achieved and what

tasks remain.

Thirty-two professionals, representing a wide variety of disciplines and expertise, convened to

discuss the issues surrounding shared parenting practices and policy.2We reached consensus points,

as noted in the Final Report and discussed in the commentaries. We also left some of the thorniest

issues for subsequent discussion and work, much to the disappointment of some commentators.

Reading through the commentaries, we felt a bit of déjà vu. The same divisions that made consensus

so elusive at the Think Tank are evident in the nature and breadth of perspectives expressed in the

commentaries. To wit:

Three of the six commentators (one legal scholar and two mental health scholars) favoredstatutor y

presumptions or guidelines regarding shared parental decision making, although they differed as to

whether they endorsed a blanket approval or supported a shared decision-making presumption only

under particular circumstances. Two legal practitioners writing together espoused no presumption

generally,but would consider shared decision making in specific situations. One mental health scholar

opposed presumptions but only for some of the family court populace, and the only judge providing

commentary strongly advocated judicial discretion and individual decision making. Clearly, diversity

in opinion reigned, just as it did at the Think Tank.

Each of the commentators staked out a position by giving certain considerations preference or

value over others. For example, legal practitioners Cognetti and Chmil rejected presumptions and

directives, focusing instead on each family’s unique circumstances and agreeing with the ThinkTank

“that the most effective decision making about postseparation custody rights is case specific.”

However, they allowed room for a presumption that both parents should share in the decision making

“when appropriate” if “there is a modicum degree of cooperation and communication between the

parents.” This hedges all bets, as “modicum” must be defined and “when appropriate” determined on

a case-by-case basis. Two mental health researchers (Lamb and Braver) eschewed individualized

decision making on the basis that it maintains—and even spurs on—continued parental conflict

without evidence that it increases the quality of decisions. Lamb advocated for decisions “informed

by clear principles that are based on empirical research and are subject to critical evaluation” and

Braver concurred, but he also wondered if “it really matter[s] what the law says or what presumption

is in force? Of course it does, but only symbolically.” Braver contended that the “buzz” or believed

norms about how decisions are made in court exert as much or more influence than the law itself.

Scott, a legal scholar, argued for the “approximation”standard adopted by the American Law Institute,

which includes a presumption of shared decision-making responsibility and allocates custodial

Correspondence: mpruett@smith.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 55 No. 2, April 2014 207–212

© 2014 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts