DAILY TOOL: Frequency vs. Duration of Parent-Child Contact

TOOL OF THE DAY: Frequency vs. Duration of Parent-Child Contact

CATEGORY: Family Law

Many statutes say that the goal is to protect the relationship between the parent and the child in divorce. I know that’s the public policy here in Texas. In fact the statute reads:

“The public policy of this state is to:

(1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;”

and most divorce decrees contain that language in it.

Unfortunately the judges have been left to their own interpretation of what “frequent and continuing contact” will be. This is addressed through what they determine is the “best interest of the child.”

Recently, we found an excerpt in a book to further the argument that the most protective way to facilitate the best interest of a child is to ensure that the duration that each parents have the child is also protected. It is well known and well settled that the more time you spend with a person, the more you will influence them.

For example, the more time that a child spends with their friends the more they become influenced by them and in fact there are studies that show that they will make worse decisions when they are around their friends frequently if those friends influence them towards bad decision making.

So if a child spends more time with gang members, these people have greater influence over the child.

So “The more time parents spend with their children, the more likely the parents will be able to influence them. If parental duration is lacking, the children tend to spend more time with their friends, including, in extreme cases, gang members.”*

When a court selects one parent over the other, and perhaps one of the parents is inclined to brainwash and turn the child against the other, and they are given more duration of time. For example a custodial parent has a child in their possession in some cases the majority of the time, if they wish to negatively influence the child they can do this very easily.

So might it be safe to say that the courts select one parent over the other because perhaps they wish for that parent to be the major influence over the child? If the judges are selecting the parent that they favor over the other, and their biases are being encouraged. Naturally they are being biased over who they feel is the more ideal parent. Therefore, they are intentionally ensuring that the other, noncustodial parent, does not have much influence over those children.

This would appear to go against the intent of the public policy to keep children’s relationships with each parent healthy and strong.

Sherry Palmer

Strategic Parental Rights Strategist, Instructor, Constitutional Scholar, and Author

Divorce Solutions and Child Custody Solutions

Co-author “Not in the Child’s Best Interest” (Book on parental rights and children’s rights)

Co-author “Protecting Parent-Child Bonds: 28th Amendment” (Book includes guide for legislators)

Website: www.fixfamilycourts.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/fixfamilycourts (@fixfamilycourts)

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fix-Family-Courts/324146134354536

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_kKO3Xc_UT7ZeNU6OkYK0g/

 

Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney or a lawyer. I do NOT practice law in any federal or State court system. Any information provided by me to you, regardless of how specific, is NOT intended to be legal advice under any state or federal law. I provide research, written strategies, and non-professional personal opinions on the Constitution and State laws as free exchange of politically important information that also serves an important public need and interest allowed under the First Amendment. You are highly encouraged to engage an attorney in your State to help you with the specifics of your legal issues and the law in your State. If you are a pro se litigant then you bear all and full responsibility for understanding the law in your state and acting under the law in your state. Nothing you receive from me is intended to be a “legal” document for purposes of any type of filing in any court. You are free to use my words for your personal non-commercial benefit, or as an aide in petitioning your government for redress of perceived wrongs, if properly cited where appropriate. YOU TAKE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LEGAL ACTIONS YOU PURSUE AND THE RESULTS THAT YOU GET. I BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR RESULTS. MY OPINIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN MY PERSONAL NON-PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OR BELIEFS. I MAKE NO CLAIMS OF LEGAL COMPETENCY IN THE LAW UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT STANDARD OF COMPETENCY IN THE LAW.

 

The information provided above is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. You should consult an attorney regarding your rights under the law.

 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the specific individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, copyrighted, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure.  You are hereby notified that any copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited and may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.  Please notify the sender, by reply electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message and any attachments without making any copies if you are not the intended recipient.  Thank you.

 

*The Like Switch – p.7 – Jack Schafer, Ph.D., with Marvin Karlins, Ph.D. 2015