EDITORIAL NOTES

• Author: Andrew Schepard
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2001.tb00615.x
• Published date: 01 October 2001
• Date: 01 October 2001

EDITORIAL

NOTES

FCR’s

goal is to provide cutting-edge interdisciplinary perspectives on family dispute

resolution to an audience capable of incorporating these perspectives into the daily work of

family courts. The articles in this issue meet that goal in diverse program areas.

OVERNIGHT VISITATION

FOR

INFANTS:

THE

CONTINUING DEBATE

Family courts face a no more vexing problem than developing residence and access plans

for infant children when divorcing and separating parents live apart. The numbers of parents

who divorce when their children are very young seems to be growing, and everyone involved

with families and courts is deeply concerned about the long-term impact of continuing con-

flict on the emotional development of infants. This issue continues

FCR’s

discussion of this

controversial problem.

Is the emotional development of infants benefited or burdened by spending frequent

overnights in the separate residence of each parent? Judith Solomon and Zeynep Biringen

critique Joan Kelly and Michael Lamb’s article on that subject in

FCRs

July

2000

special

issue on child custody evaluations. In their article, Kelly and Lamb argue that the available

empirical research base generally supports overnight visitation for infants because it

strengthens

the

child’s relationship with both parents.

In

this

issue, Solomon and Biringen

disagree. They contest Kelly and Lamb’s interpretation of the research results and suggest

that overnight visitation should

be

avoided through

the

third year of

life

“when parental con-

flict is high and parent communication is low.”

Kelly and Lamb respond to Solomon and Biringen’s critique and are not persuaded by it.

They conclude that Solomon and Biringen’s guideline of delaying overnight visitation “at

least through the third year of life” is “absolutely unsupported by empirical evidence

and.

. .

run[s]

the risk of severing relationships that could constitute important short- and longer-

term emotional, social, and financial resources for young children.”

Jonathan Gould and Philip Stahl then add a brief commentary on how chld custody eval-

uators should take the different perspectives of Kelly and

Lamb

and Solomon and Biringen

into account. They argue that research results should be thoughtfully integrated into the

forensic evaluation for a particular family and that infants and parents should not

be

sub-

jected to a “cookbook” solution for overnight visitation.

Readers will, I

am

sure, find these sophisticated, comprehensive, and yet accessible dis-

cussions of

the

needs of infants enmeshed in their parents’ separation and divorce stimulating

and an excellent source of references for further research. Whatever they conclude, readers

will be grateful to the authors for helping advance our understanding

of

how best to mesh the

needs of very young children with the actual parenting plans developed by family courts.

FAMILY

COURT

REVIEW,

Vol.

39

No.

4,

October

2001

349-353

0

2001

Sage

Publications

349