A “Child-Healthy” Divorce
Psychoanalyst, Erica Komisar, has recently published her second book: “The Child-Healthy Divorce – How to Protect Your Child’s Mental and Emotional Health Through a Breakup or Separation.”
I thought it would be interesting to see how her advice to parents compares with the court’s approach to disputes involving children.
The Welfare of the Child
Under the Children Act 1989, the court’s paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. This is assessed using the “welfare checklist,” which includes factors such as:
- The child’s wishes and feelings (depending on age and understanding);
- Their physical, emotional and educational needs;
- The likely effect of any change in circumstances; and
- The capability of each parent.
Importantly, the court does not adopt a single psychological theory or parenting philosophy and there is no one size fits all.
Whilst Komisar’s approach is certainly child- focussed, she does make several recommendations which conflict with how courts typically consider cases:
Primary Attachment vs Shared Care
Komisar advises that children always sleep at the home of the primary parent. She suggests that overnight stays with the other parent may undermine attachment and impact mental health in adulthood. Komisar says “a strong bond with one parent was better than weak bonds with two.”
In contrast, although “primary carer” is a term used by the courts, it is generally recognised that both parents playing a meaningful role in a child’s life. While equal time is not presumed, the court often supports regular overnight contact even for younger children where it is safe and appropriate.
Stability vs Practical Reality
The suggestion that children should remain predominantly in one home for emotional stability can be at odds with modern parenting arrangements. Courts frequently approve shared care arrangements where children move between homes, especially when parents live close to one another and have a positive coparenting relationship.
Komisar encourages parents with young children to consider “nesting” which is an arrangement whereby the children remain living in the family home and it is the parents who alternate their own living arrangements. This may be good in theory, but not always practical or financially sound.
Wrong Time vs Right Time
Komisar suggests that divorcing once children have gone to University brings with it increased difficulties as the children “need a stable environment to emotionally refuel.” And yet, from a financial point of view this could be the ideal time for couples to separate as they could then look to downsize or move out of the area, finding it easier to meet their respective housing needs.
In terms of when to introduce a new partner, Komisar advises waiting to make sure “the partner you’re introducing is a keeper.” From a legal point of view, it is important to be aware that cohabitation with a new partner could be a reason for your ex-spouse to apply to vary spousal maintenance downwards as you now have someone to share your household outgoings with. It could also be a reason for your maintenance to terminate automatically.
Summary
Generally Komisar’s advice which puts children at the centre is spot on. Avoiding conflict, not criticising the other parent, not involving the children and supporting their emotional needs is entirely consistent with the court’s expectations. In particular, the courts are alive to the issue of parental alienation and both parents should be encouraged to support the children’s relationship with the other parent.
Whilst helpful from a parenting point of view it is important to be aware that the approach of a psychoanalyst may not always align with the court. It is crucial to seek early specialist advice in order to manage expectations and reduce conflict.
