The Costs and Pitfalls of Individualizing Decisions and Incentivizing Conflict: A Comment on Afcc's Think Tank Report on Shared Parenting

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12079
• Author: Sanford L. Braver
• Published date: 01 April 2014
• Date: 01 April 2014

REPORT RESPONSES AND COMMENTARIES

THE COSTS AND PITFALLS OF INDIVIDUALIZING DECISIONS AND

INCENTIVIZING CONFLICT: A COMMENT ON AFCC’S THINK TANK

REPORT ON SHARED PARENTING

Sanford L. Braver

The AFCC Think Tank on Research, Policy, Practice, and Shared Parenting is quite groundbreaking, had an all-star cast, and

the issues could hardly be more important to our organization. Yet, many will regard the final report from the think tank as

disappointing because, simply,it fails to say very much. I argue that the reason is that the think tank gave too little consideration

to two interlocking costs to the families. First are the costs associated with individualizing decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Much as it may be desirable, we may really not know how to properly individualize, tailor, or custom-fit parenting plans to

achieve the best possible outcomes in each case. So, the effort and expense and time and trouble taken in the futile pursuit of

case-specific decisions come with little corresponding benefits. Better to have a starting place that covers the majority of cases

and families, with, of course, the ability to deviate when the fit is obviouslybad. The general public strongly believes that shared

parenting is that starting place and that any other position is biased. The second cost is that vagueness and ambivalence will

ultimately be iatrogenic for families byleading to g reater conflict.Various proposals under consideration differently incentivize

parents to engage in that conflict. Presumptions, of any flavor, generally minimize such incentives. A shared parenting

presumption would minimize that incentive most of all.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

• We do not know enough to validly individualize custody arrangements.

• Vagueness and ambivalence incentivize conflict between the parents, which we do know is deleterious.

• A shared parenting presumption is strongly viewedby the public as the correct starting place and that any other position

is biased.

• The buzz among divorce professionals about what is “the best”—and/or the most judge preferred—arrangement exerts

heavy influence on the arrangements most parents eventually settle upon.

• The think tank provides an extremely useful agenda for future research.

Keywords: Approximation Rule;Custody;Custody Evaluation;Interparental Conflict;Shared Parenting;and Think Tank.

It is an honor for me to be asked to comment on the final report from the AFCC Think Tank on

Research, Policy, Practice, and Shared Parenting (Pruett & DiFonzo, 2014). This AFCC effort is quite

groundbreaking, and the issue of shared parenting policy could hardly be more important to our

organization. The idea of bringing together an all-star cast of scholars, researchers, practitioners,

decision makers, and policy makers for an extended meeting to attempt to thrash out areas of

consensus and disagreement on this critical issue was a brilliant one. The choice of members was

careful and deliberate, attempting to cover the waterfront of both areas of expertise and divergent

viewpoints. Based on my familiarity with many of the members, this effort was extremely successful.

Of course, one must ultimately weigh the value of the report not on the membership of the think

tank, no matter how illustrious and eminent; nor on the reporting, no matter how faithful Marsha and

Herbie’s summary was to the debate; nor on the enterprise itself, no matter how timely,visionary, and

necessary. Instead, we must evaluate the report on its content, on its recommendations, and on its

take-home message for policy makers and fellow professionals. It will not surprise me if, here, many

Correspondence: Sanford.Braver@asu.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol.52 No. 2, April 2014 175–180

© 2014 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts