Is Visitation an Outdated term?

I once overheard an older relative ask one of my cousins if her husband was babysitting their children.  Since my cousin didn't have the children with her, the older relative was simply asking if the children were with their father.  But my cousin heard it differently.  She answered that he was their father and didn't "babysit", he "parented" their children.

For those who grew up at at time when Ward Cleaver was the typical father figure, only entering the picture to discipline the children or throw a ball with them, if a father is taking care of the children while mom is out that is unusual.  But the newest generation of parents grew up with the hands-on parenting of Dr. Huxtable and Danny Tanner.  To what extent TV is just reflecting the change in societal norms or affecting them is beyond the scope of this post.  But clearly there has been a shift regarding how involved the average father is in the everyday parenting responsibilities.

If the notion that a father could "babysit" his own children is outdated, can we say the same about the notion that a non-custodial parent "visits" his or her own children?

A recent Huffington Post headline regarding Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise raised my ire because of the purposely vague and inflammatory use of the term "full custody."  In my response, I addressed why that term can be so confusing and hurtful.  Coincidentally (or perhaps not), the Huffington Post has again written a headline that is insensitive to these issues: Suri Cruise Prepares To Visit Dad Tom Cruise For First Time Since Parents' Split.

Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise released a statement when they settled their divorce that made it clear (at least publicly) that they felt both parents should remain involved in their daughter, Suri's, life.  It's a shame that the media, specifically in this case The Huffington Post, believe it is still appropriate to characterize Dad's time as merely a visit.

Whether in litigation, mediation, or collaborative divorce cases, we encourage our clients to consider what their parenting schedule and parenting plan should be before they worry about the legal labels.   The goal of speaking about parenting in these terms is to refocus separated parents on what is best for their children, rather than who is "winning."  Recognizing the shared roles that parents have and the cooperation necessary to parent a child together even if from separate households is more important that what words we use to describe the arrangement.  

This approach takes the focus off of the language, whether it's the old language of "visitation" or the new language of "parenting time."   It's still important to remember, though, that certain terms can be offensive or hurtful, especially when it comes to a subject as sensitive as taking away someone's children.  Because the term "visiting parent" has come to be considered derogatory it's probably time to retire it.  Speaking about each parent as having parenting time respects them as equal parents even if they don't have equal time.  And respect is something every divorce case could use a little more of.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Why do divorces get so contentious?

One Lawyer's Opinion: Last week, I was having a casual conversation about settlement of divorce cases, and commented: “each side chooses their weapons. The husband will use custody to push the wife’s buttons; the wife will use financial issues to push his. Wind blows, fire burns. It’s just the way it is.”
I don’t think there are any lawyers or clients out there that openly admit to following this playbook. Kids are people, after all, not the wedding china, the plasma TV, a 401K or the myriad of other things that family law attorneys use to equitably divide assets during a divorce. Still, my recognition and arguable acquiescence to “the way it is” proved problematic to my preferred practice model.
Where does this assumption come from, then?
While I don’t use this strategy to leverage a settlement, it is still prevalent in practice, so much so that I subconsciously admitted that that was inherent to divorce and family law practice. The answer, it seems, would be more complex. Certain biases are ingrained in all of us and show when the emotions of divorce, litigation, and the ultimate fear of loss causes us to shed our talents for rational analysis and appeal to our more basal "fight or flight" responses. In effect, we "go for the jugular", and hit the other side where it will hurt the most.
I’m not saying the traditional wage-earning parent cares less for the children, or vice versa. Rather, the "money-versus-custody" mindset plays on the biases regarding the traditional wage earner vs. caregiver roles. Divorce forces the parties out of their individual role in the family and forces each side to accept new responsibilities; to a certain degree, each parent is now a caretaker and a wage-earner.
At its lowest common denominator, these claims are usually not a fight over money or children, but a fight over identity and what makes each of us who we are. The emotional threat (or fear) of taking away purpose or identity is the biggest stick any of us can wield, and not surprisingly, it can make any process far more contentious than necessary. We (both attorneys and clients) should be aware of it, prepare for it, and most importantly, provide clients with the peace of mind to know that although the climb might be difficult, the views from the summit are pretty good.

What should you tell your child about your Evil Ex?

Showtimes for Phineas and Ferb

My oldest daughter and I have found a TV show that we both can agree on: Disney's Phineas and Ferb (new episodes Fridays on Disney Channel, and available on Netflix Instant Watch).  The basic plot of the show is that two boys, Phineas and Ferb, create an unbelievable invention in each episode and have an adventure, while their older sister, Candace, tries to catch them in the act of doing something dangerous.  There is a side plot in most episodes involving their pet platypus, Perry, who also happens to be a secret agent foiling the plot of Dr. Doofenshmirtz, an inept evil scientist.

Dr. Doofenshmirtz
(as seen in Phineas and Ferb)

The reason the show also appeals to adults is that the characters are well rounded and experience everyday situations in addition to the incredible plot adventures.  In the episode I Scream, You Scream, for instance, we find out that Dr. Doofenshmirtz has an ex-wife, Charlene Doofenshmirtz, and a daughter, Vanessa Doofenshmirtz.  Vanessa is a teenager who doesn't enjoy spending time with her father and would rather be with her friends (shockingly typical).  In this episode she tries to explain to her mother that her father is evil and is always trying evil schemes while she is with him (admittedly a little less typical).

Vanessa is in fact right and Dr. Doofenshmirtz, although inept, is evil.  However, Charlene, Vanessa's mother, assures her daughter that her father is not evil.  This episode proceeds with an attempt by Vanessa to get her father busted for being evil, while at the same time Candace is trying to bust Phineas and Ferb for their latest adventure.  Of course, they both fail.

But when Vanessa fails to have her mom catch her dad in one of his evil schemes, I was left wondering whether her mom already knew.  If Charlene and Dr. Doofenshmirtz were married surely she would be aware of his evil schemes.  In fact those schemes, and all the money he must spend on them, were probably the basis for their divorce.  Why would she pretend not to know and assure her daughter that her father wasn't evil?



As a divorce practitioner, I have experience working with couples trying to co-parent and have heard all kinds of stories about "evil exes".  However, in every case involving children I always give the same advice regarding what to tell the children.  Tell them simply that both of their parents love them, and they will both continue to be involved in their lives.  I tell my clients to "Say only nice things about your ex to your children, even when you don't believe them to be true."

Children's identities are tied to both of their parents.  As part of growing up we eventually learn of our parent's fallibility and mortality, and those are difficult lessons because they force us to face those same traits in ourselves.  For children of divorcing and divorced parents, they are forced to learn that their parents (and therefore themselves) can fail at relationships.  This is why children grieve the marriage just as adults do, even though they grieve it in different ways.

If you also insult or tear down that child's other parent, you are forcing them to experience even greater loss and doubt during an already difficult time.  Any action that damages a child's opinion about their parent, also damages that child's own self-esteem, especially at a time when they are already vulnerable to doubt and confusion about their identity.

Wanting your children to be healthy and self-confident, therefore, requires building their confidence in both you and your ex.  In the episode I described above, Charlene could have agreed with Vanessa that her father was evil, or at the very least quite weird.  In fact, it probably would have been more honest.  But instead she tells Vanessa "your father isn't evil, we just didn't get along.  We wanted different things."  She doesn't explain further, she simply insists that Vanessa still spend the weekend with her father.

One of the things I enjoy about Pheneas and Ferb is how well the show models behavior for children.  Phineas is always upbeat, creative, inventive and whenever someone is rude to him he responds with kindness.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see the show model such great behavior for adults as well.  Many divorcing parents could learn from Charlene Doofenshmirtz's example.