Custody is a sacred cow

Last week, Federal Councilor Simonetta Sommaruga confirmed that in the event of a divorce, joint custody should now become the rule. What do you think of that? Joint custody is definitely a step forward. And I am convinced that it has a preventative effect and that children are less likely to be used as a means of pressure.

If two people can no longer talk to each other, that doesn't help either.

True, it's not a panacea. It won't work for so-called highly contentious couples. I know fathers who are already in the starting blocks and are rubbing their hands because they think that with the new law I also have a say. Of course it doesn't work that way.

The first draft of the law contained fines if parents did not stick to agreements, for example withholding visitation rights. These sanctions have now been removed without replacement. You, on the other hand, would have supported it.

Buses are not the perfect solution, but they would have at least signaled that people are no longer willing to accept that a parent is standing in the way. Today there are no consequences, the authorities are powerless. And whoever is the cause of these disputes is laughing up his sleeve because he knows full well that his behavior will have no consequences.

Are you calling for more coercion towards parents who don't show signs?

I advocate that the regulation of children's concerns be given the same amount of attention as the regulation of material matters. To this day, however, when the visitation rules are violated, people shrug their shoulders and say, well, if a parent doesn't cooperate, there's nothing they can do, and are content with this statement. I don't understand why there are sanctions if someone violates the building code, but none if someone violates the agreements in connection with a divorce. When everyone always emphasized how much they cared about the child's well-being!

What do you suggest?

It should be possible to clarify whether the parent who repeatedly does not stick to agreements is still in a position to look after the child's interests. With the consequence that if you come to a negative conclusion, parental custody will be withdrawn, custody will be re-arranged or visitation rights will be suspended.

That would be perceived as a massive intervention.

That's what it should be! Custody is a sacred cow; it is considered inviolable. But if someone refuses or does not exercise visitation rights, then it is not an adult matter. Then the child's interests are affected, massively, and that should be sanctioned. This also has positive consequences: In France, where such sanctions have been in place since 2002, a social rethink has taken place. Anyone who doesn't stick to agreements and thereby harms their children is ostracized.

What do children suffer most from when their parents separate?

At first, children long for the ideal world. They are told stories about the princess and the prince who are happily ever after. And at a very young age they have to realize that the reality is completely different. Then they endure the arguments between their parents very badly. The same applies when they are used as post carriers between the parents, i.e. they are supposed to convey messages indirectly: Is mommy's new boyfriend still there? Did daddy drink beer again? This makes children uncomfortable, but they don't dare say anything out of loyalty to their parents. They want to please everyone.

Can children survive a divorce unscathed?

Unharmed?

Let's say: At least not seriously damaged.

It is possible, despite everything. I don't believe that every child of divorce is damaged for the rest of their life. But it is a drastic experience, a turning point. Some need at least occasional professional support and guidance.

What do parents most often do wrong, probably not out of any malice?

For example, they prohibit children from talking to one parent about the other parent. Children don't cope well with this because they are asked to strictly separate their mother and father worlds. This is common practice and one of the worst things parents can do to their children. Another example: In a family, people used to take into account the fact that the son didn't like fish. Now the father has a new girlfriend and allows this girlfriend to say: Everything is eaten at our table. That is bad. For the child, it's not just the fish, but a piece of his world that is no longer respected - and his own father doesn't support him. But the father is again in a compulsion; he wants to please his new partner.

What do parents underestimate most?

That they remain parents. That they remain responsible, together, towards their children. They forget this not even out of bad intentions, but because they are so busy with themselves. And then they underestimate the fact that the children are getting bigger. And that parents who have not learned to remain parents despite all odds face even greater problems as these children grow up and their care becomes more demanding. I demand that mothers and fathers learn to differentiate between what is a partner level and what is a parent level.

Is the impression deceptive or are divorces actually becoming increasingly bitter?

In a certain sense, yes. There are a lot more emotions involved than before. In the past it was often a rational decision: people came to the conclusion that it was no longer working and separated. Today, a marriage is associated with so many and so high expectations that there is a lot of anger and disappointment when it doesn't work out.

That's a paradox: today, when every second marriage fails and divorce is no longer a problem, should the burden be greater than before?

Despite its frequency, it is not a given. I know couples who lost their entire circle of friends when they divorced because it wasn't accepted. In addition, women are still judged or ostracized more for this. A divorced woman has a different social position than a divorced man.