top of page
Search
Writer's pictureAJ Gajjar

Children don't get to...

Updated: 2 days ago


“Children do not get to make those decisions”.


Something I have heard countless times in conversations around custody, parenting time, and which parent to live with.


“Children do not get to make those decisions. Those are adult decisions.”

I have one question…WHY???


Family laws in Canada (both provincially and federally) are based on the principle of “the best interests of the child”.


If you have 2 parents who are unequivocally committed to making decisions in the best interest of the child, and the child is content and thriving with 50 /50 parenting time that’s great. It all worked out.


50 /50 presupposes equal access to each parent. Also, in the best interest of the child.


What happens then when one parent is trying to operate from the lens of “best interest of the child” and one parent operates from the lens of what is in their own best interest?


Typical in high-conflict divorce dynamics.


What happens when the child is not happy with 50 /50 time with each parent?


Not just unhappy because they are made to do chores and have limits on screen time. But because they are made to feel unwanted, unimportant and like they don’t belong.


What happens when there are clear indications that the child is not thriving in a 50 /50 parenting time situation?


Canada tends to default to 50 / 50 parenting time. This is based on parental right – NOT best interest of the child.


Property, assets, possessions are split 50 /50 in divorce.


Children are not property. They are not assets or possessions. And we as their parents, DO NOT OWN THEM.


Research is showing that maintaining the time that the child spent with each parent prior to separation is the best option for maintaining stability and consistency post separation.


Let’s be honest – even in the healthiest of nuclear families, children are not spending 50% of their time with each parent. So why do we feel they need to spend 50% of their time with each parent post separation?


“Children have a right to have a relationship with each parent”.


Absolutely they do, and again, it is in the child’s best interest to do so.


However, the right to have a relationship with each parent has little to do with the amount of time being spent with each parent. Quality supersedes quantity.


When qualities inherent in that relationship are contributing to the child to feel unsafe, their needs not being met, and like they “don’t want to go” to that parent’s house, what happens then?


The majority of the disruption created by high-conflict divorce falls on the shoulders of the child. THEY have 2 houses to live in. 2 different sets of rules, expectations, responsibilities. Different smells, taste of food, bedrooms, even what their bed feels like and how well they sleep – or not.


There is NO adult that I know of that would thrive and perform to the best of their capacity if they had to live like that.


The brunt of the damage and disruption caused in high-conflict divorce involving children, falls on the children. They bear the weight of the long-term negative consequences that are likely to follow and the impacts that it is going to have on the rest of their lives.


Consequences such as significantly increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, self-harm, risky behaviors, addictions, and physical health challenges.


So I ask again WHY can children NOT make this decision???


Or at least, depending on their age, be supported in having their opinion considered and the opportunity to maybe try something other than 50 /50 that might work better for them?


One reason I have heard is because they don’t yet have the mental capacity to make life decisions like that.


I would argue that the high-conflict, maladaptive parent does not have the mental capacity to make decisions like that either.


I want to be clear. I in NO WAY support the removal of a parent from the life of a child. That in an of itself leads to psychological harm and trauma.


But 50 /50 parenting time, OR 100% parenting time with no access to the other parent are NOT the only 2 options.


There are ways to let children have a relationship with the parent they may not feel safe with and that may be causing them harm. The way is through harm-reduction. Supporting the children to have a relationship on their terms and in way that does not cause them even further harm.


This however requires thinking outside the box, a trauma informed lens, and prioritizing the safety and protection of the child over the rights of the parent.


Children are intrinsically, biologically driven to attach to their parents. When they express that they do not want to spend time with one parent or the other, that is typically not something expressed lightly or without reason.


I believe that expression in and of itself warrants a deeper dive and curiosity into what might be happening for that child.


A curiosity that family lawyers, therapists, mediators, custody evaluators – all professionals in place to operate in the “best interest of the child” need to lean into.


The voices of these children are being ignored purely because “they are children – they don’t know what they are saying or talking about. They don’t understand”.


This stance is causing more harm to these children. They are not being protected and they are not being heard. The only thing we are teaching them is to ignore their own gut, their own intuition and do as others tell them to do. It teaches them that they have no control and no agency.


How is that lesson is going to serve them in their future?


One more thing – let’s reframe parenting time for what it truly is. It is not YOUR parenting time. It is your CHILD’S TIME with you.


They are the one who had to split their life in two. They should get to decide where they spend their time.


Providing children with the opportunities to develop their own critical thinking skills, listen to their inner voice, establish boundaries, recognize what feels safe to them and why, that would be in the child's best interest - for now, and their future.

35 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page