Tomorrow, June 16, is a day that has come far too quickly: my
daughter Zara’s first birthday. It is a time to pause and reflect on the
joys and craziness of parenting, and on the realization that Zara will
never again repeat her first steps and first words (no, not Mama or
Dada, but “car”. Oh well, at least the kid knows what she likes).
Her birthday also falls less than a week before Father’s Day, and
thus also brought to mind a piece of legislation before Parliament which
would radically change child custody and access laws in Canada:
Bill C-422.
This private member’s bill, introduced by Conservative MP Maurice
Vellacott, would amend the Divorce Act to mandate “equal shared
parenting” when parents split up. Courts would start from the
presumption that parents share time with the kids and decision making on
a 50-50 basis, and put the legal onus on parents to show that such an
arrangement would not be in the child’s best interest.
Before I had a baby, I would probably have supported this
legislation. Who would deny a child the right to the equal love and care
of both parents? Why do mothers get custody so much more often than
fathers?
Raising an infant as a single parent for the past year, however, has
changed my opinion. Not because I think that children don’t need
fathers, but because I realize that they need each parent in different
ways at different stages of development. And unfortunately, Bill C-422
presumes that equal parenting is best regardless of circumstance,
including the age of the child.
Children are constantly changing, and what may work for a 12-year-old
may hurt a two-year-old. Case in point: shared physical custody. A
pre-teen can fully understand that when he stays with mom one week and
dad the next, he will be seeing mom again soon. But an infant cannot
grasp this fact. Even a toddler is unable to fully verbalize desires and
feelings, while teenagers, if I recall the drama I put my own parents
through, are only too able to express themselves.
When it comes to very young children, the presumption of the bill
contradicts the first law of every parenting book on Earth: Disrupt a
baby’s routine as little as possible. Expert after expert advises
parents to establish one sleep routine, nap routine and meal routine,
and to ease young children slowly into transitions, such as moving house
or mommy going back to work. They further warn that vacations — or any
time away overnight from home — will prove disruptive. Indeed, what
parents haven’t returned from a trip with their tots only to find that
they suddenly won’t sleep through the night, or cling to your leg like
Saran Wrap?
Add to that the advice of the medical community that breastfeeding is
best for infants under one year. As a mother who nursed for that time, I
can testify only too well that breastfeeding is about much more than
food. It is about comfort– when baby cannot sleep or is sick, teething
or cranky. No offence, dads, but there are some things men just cannot
do. Separating a breastfeeding infant from its mother is just plain
cruel, never mind impossible if the child refuses to drink from a
bottle.
Which brings us back to Bill C-422. Equal shared parenting would mean
that very young children could be constantly shuttled back and forth
between their parents’ homes. Breast here, bottle there, stay-at-home
parent here, daycare there. This type of endless transitioning will do
them no favours — in fact,
it can do a lot of damage. Courts can already order these kinds of arrangements, even without shared parenting rules, and there is
mounting evidence that the stress hurts a young child’s ability to attach to either parent, and to other people in general.
Bill C-422 would make this type of arrangement even more common at a
time when other jurisdictions are questioning this model. Case in point:
The Australian government, which four years ago introduced mandatory
equal parenting legislation, is currently under pressure to revise its
laws in the wake of several damning reports.
Researchers found that
not only were some children at risk of being placed in violent
situations, but even children who were physically safe felt depressed,
stressed and confused, and suffered adjustment problems. They also found
that some fathers’ motivation in seeking shared custody was not to bond
with their children, but to reduce the amount of child support they had
to pay.
A consistent theme in child psychological literature is that children
under the age of three need stability to grow up to be well-adjusted
and confident adults. In Zara’s case, she is fortunate to have a father
who gets that, and puts her needs ahead of his “right” to take her
overnight alone, even under current laws. Until she is ready for
overnights, Zara visits with him regularly at her home in the GTA and at
his home in Montreal, with both parents present. Now one year old, Zara
recognizes her father, greets him with her sunny smile, calls him Dada
and is happy in his presence and his arms — all without suffering the
anxiety of being torn from one parent to another at a young age.
Granted, this type of arrangement takes compromise by both mom and
dad, and would not work for everyone, but isn’t that the point? Imposing
a universal shared parenting presumption, with equal time regardless of
age or situation, is not in the best interests of children. Respecting
their stages of development is, and so is allowing parents to come up
with their own solutions.
I hope our lawmakers will allow other fractured families the same
latitude, and defeat Bill C-422 or amend it to respect the needs of very
young children, and other special circumstances. Until then, happy
birthday Zara, and happy Father’s Day, Ian. You both deserve the best
celebrations a daughter and dad can have.
tkheiriddin@nationalpost.com