Posted on 11/21/2011 9:37:32 PM PST by DeaconBenjamin
The Swiss government has decided separated parents should automatically have joint custody of their children except in cases involving the specific protection of the child.
When a couple splits or gets divorced, custody of their children will be shared without the need for a prior agreement or the approval of a judge.
Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga said on Thursday that the Federal Council considered the move obvious, since a child has the right to build an autonomous relationship wityh both father and mother.
All political parties, as well as fathers’ and men’s associations, welcomed Sommaruga’s proposal, which is widely expected top pass into law when voted on in parliament in the coming weeks.
But while joint custody is set to become the norm, a judge will still have to sign off on the suitability of both parents to take responsibility for their children. A parent may be denied custody for reasons including infirmity, a history of violence or absence.
Currently, when a couple divorces, one parent generally gets sole custody. If the couple is not married, the mother is the legal custodian. For now, joint custody is only possible if both parties sign an agreement on how they plan to distribute and share alimony and childcare.
The draft proposal also regulates the question of residency. If a parent wishes to move, either alone or with the child, he or she will need the consent of the other party. If there is no agreement, a judge will have to intervene to protect the well-being of the child.
Every year, about 14,000 children in Swizerland are confronted with their parents’ divorce or separation.
Reasonable.
What is reasonable about that?
That is the case here. Divorced parents can move, but not out of state. Still, if they are coparenting a child, it’s hardly fair to move a distance away, making commuting between parents even more of a chore.
Frankly, I think that if both people are loving enough to be great at parenting the child, they should stick together! I know it doesn’t always work this way. I had to divorce my first husband so I get it.
I think it is so a parent can’t move out of the country. There is a heavy Muslim population there and we don’t need another Sally Field situaton on our hands.
Oh please, I live in Switzerland and this has nothing to do with Muslims!
And what is "reasonable" about it? Is it reasonable to be held hostage by a vindictive ex-partner? Should an ex-partner have a say in what jobs the other may take on and where they may be located? Should an ex-partner have a say in the when the "new family" (also with kids) decides to move? - iow, the expartner has a voice in matters relating to children not their own?
Divorce is Divorce & Custody is Custody - joint "custody" (which means to have possession of) is flat out WRONG. That both parents need to be, and should be, involved in decisions such as schooling is one thing, but this gives the "ex" far to many powers over the LIFE of the ex partner and any new partnerships that persons makes.
That one has the opportunity to take it to court does little to remedy the wrong, as any damages suffered by not moving at a given time can not be made good at some uncertain date in the future.
A friend tells me of her little one age 5 yrs getting ready to go back to her dad’s house for his week of custody—yes, they had joint custody, one week with father, one with mother—and as mom was packing her bag the girl flung herself flat on the bed and said, “Why do I have to live this way?”
As an aside, and I have no idea if the joint custody had anything to do with it (but it couldn’t have helped), the last time I saw this child she was about 16 years old and sporting tight black leather clothing laced with chains. I shudder to think of the piercings and tattoos she probably has now that she’s an adult.
Tugs at your heart, doesn’t it? It is horrible what divorce does to children.
QUOTING: IF THERE IS NO AGREEMENT, a judge will have to intervene to protect the well-being of the child. End of quote.
It is supposed to be about the children and THEIR well-being, not the parental right to disappear, move or abscond, punish. The children.
I see it as reasonable FOR THE CHILDREN. I don't care about the ticked off parent; I care about the well-being of the CHILDREN.
It’s almost always a no-win for the children, almost always.
What is reasonable: In the very old way of thinking, we had a reasonable system. The man was legally responsible, if he were able, to financially support the family and, so, he had the right to make the decision as to where the family would live. Divorce, in those days was rare, and due to “fault.”
This very old way of thinking was quite asymmetric in the rights and responsibilities of the parties to a marriage. The man was the King of the house, and the woman was the Queen. Decent men, loving their wives, did not abuse their position as King of the home, but rather used their position for the benefit of all the members of the home. Similarly, decent women, loving their husbands, did not begrudge obedience to their husbands. They, too, used their position for the benefit of all the members of the home.
In my view, this is what a Christian home should be; although, whether this should be codified into law or a matter of individual choice, depends on your view of the proper role of the government with respect to private, consensual behavior.
What is also reasonable: In the emerging way of thinking, the government does not establish the legal rights and responsibilities of the parties to a marriage. Rather, such things as financial obligations are for the parties to negotiate. In this thinking, if either party become dissatisfied with the bargain, he or she could leave the marriage, which is called a “no fault” divorce.
In this new way of thinking, neither party is presumed obligated to make support payments to the other. (However, there may be temporary spousal support payments, sort of like severance pay, if one of the parties was the “stay at home” partner and the other was the “go to work” partner, and it was the decision of the “go to work” partner to end the marriage.)
Also, in the new way of thinking, neither party is presumed to be the custodial parent in the event of a divorce. Rather, the presumption is that each will share in the upbringing and financial support of the children of the marriage, unless such an arrangement is manifestly against the best interests of the child. Therefore, in the new way of thinking, the mover is the loser of their share of custody, again unless this is manifestly against the best interests of the child.
In the transition from the very old way of thinking to the emerging way of thinking about marriage, there was a little of the very old thinking and a little of the emerging thinking. For example, a woman could choose to end a marriage, without evidence of fault on the part of the man, and expect to be awarded spousal and child support and full custody of the children and the right to relocate.
The interim system did not work very well, not for the children, nor for the men and women. It seemed that family court was mostly about making sure everybody was made equally worse off. In the meantime, about half of marriages came to be ended in divorce, men became ever more reluctant to join into marriage in the first place, the majority of children came to be raised in households that did not include their two parents, and marriage re-defined so gays had an equal right to be “married.”
Then ban divorce.
Until then, I have the right to live where I choose, regardless of what any "ex" may have to say about.
An unusual solution, but not a bad one.
we have similar rules in the states where you can’t just move to move. It has to be for a benefit to the person and by extension the child.
FOR THE CHILDREN, they should have remained married.
FOR THE CHILDREN, they should have first chosen wisely when they married and followed the vow to stay together forever.
FOR THE CHILDREN, they should put the child’s welfare before their own. Not whether or not they “FEEL IN LOVE” with the spouse.
Loving the child MEANS loving the spouse. If they couldn’t wrap their brains around this HUGE RESPONSIBILITY, then they should have remained single and childless, forever.
It is a family, not a piece of paper that they decided to tear to shreds.
And that means it's okay? Just because the US has this rule, it's okay to infringe upon a persons rights? Does the word inalienable mean whenever government decides it's expedient?
If that is what passes for the "conservative" position, then the country is far worse off then I feared.
qft
What does qft mean?
quote for truth
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.