Special Issue on Shared‐Time Parenting After Separation

• Date: 01 October 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12299
• Author: Bruce M. Smyth
• Published date: 01 October 2017

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE

SPECIAL ISSUE ON SHARED-TIME PARENTING AFTER

SEPARATION

Bruce M. Smyth

This Special Issue focuses on international perspectives on shared-time parenting after separa-

tion.

1

Shared-time parenting—where children spend at least 25–50% of their time with each parent

(variously referred to as “joint physical custody,” “shared custody,” “shared care,” “shared resi-

dence,” “alternating residence,” and “co-parenting”)—appears to be increasingly popular in many

Western countries. Its risks and benefits have been the subject of intensified research—and gender

politics—in recent years.

Knowledge about shared parenting in the broadest sense has come a long way since the first Joint

Custody Handbook was published by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts almost four

decades ago (Milne, 1979; see also Folberg, 1984, 1991). Yet fundamental gaps in our knowledge

remain: What does “home” mean to a child after divorce, and how do children create a sense of

home in more than one location, especially when they are in shared-time arrangements (see, e.g.,

Natalier & Fehlberg, 2015)? Are separated parents in entrenched high conflict able to make shared-

time arrangements work for their children emotionally, practically, and financially? Under what

conditions can court-mandated shared-time arrangements benefit children? Can shared-time arrange-

ments reduce parental acrimony? Is the number, nature, and timing of children’s transitions between

homes a critical factor for their well-being? Are shared-time arrangements experienced differently by

different siblings and by children of different ages? Do children’s gender and personality matter? Can

shared-time parenting be supportive for the child when one parent is fearful of the other? And the list

goes on (see, e.g., Pruett & DiFonzo, 2014).

As noted recently by Nikolina (2015, pp. 2–3):

[I]t is unclear how co-parenting should be defined; if, and how often, it occurs; how the courts should

deal with it; what effect it has on children’s well-being; and thus also what the best course of action for

the legislator would be in dealing with co-parenting.

In a recent review of the shared-time parenting and child outcome literature, several colleagues

and I concluded that “[s]ome three decades on from the early studies of shared-time parenting, it

seems remarkable that the latest studies continue to be characterized by conceptual and methodologi-

cal heterogeneity, and that the quality of shared-time research remains so varied.” We suggested that

the international research literature on postseparation shared-time arrangements was a “conceptual

and methodological quagmire” and that its heterogeneous nature made it difficult to inform the work

of family law system professionals (Smyth, McIntosh, Emery, & Higgs Howarth, 2016, p. 128).

First-generation studies of joint (physical) custody, conducted primarily in the United States,

wrestled with basic questions: Does joint custody work? When is it most likely to work? When is it

likely to fail? Should courts impose joint custody? (e.g., Folberg, 1991). But more recently, with the

arrival of larger, second-generation shared-time studies and an expanding international knowledge

base aimed at better understanding children’s developmental needs, more refined questions about

Correspondence: Bruce.Smyth@anu.edu.au

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 55 No. 4, October 2017 494–499

V

C2017 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts