On April 20, the Federal Court made a landmark decision in favor of alternating custody.
The real credit, however, belongs to the Basel Cantonal Court, which made the substantive decision. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the decision, thereby underlining its correctness.
Specifically, the decision BGer 5A_888 2016 concerns whether alternating custody can be ordered even against the will of one parent.
The considerations of the cantonal court are also particularly important.
For example, the considerations state:
"Rather, according to current social science research, children who do not have to choose between their mother and father would suffer less from loyalty conflicts, separation anxiety, and feelings of abandonment and rejection.
More time spent with both parents in shared custody leads to a closer
emotional parent-child relationship and an improved relationship between the child and both parents. A better or closer relationship between the child and the father does not, in any case, come at the expense of the relationship with the mother."
or
There are no reasons against the care of the paternal grandparents
or
"There is no evidence that children in the residential model are healthier."
Further
"The child's age is also not a problem, especially since even toddlers can easily be cared for with equal amounts of time in shared custody. Regular contact with both parents is particularly important for toddlers."
And once again:
"Since the risk of poverty is particularly high for single parents, shared custody results in an overall economic benefit for the family, but also for the national economy.
An improvement in the family's financial situation ultimately benefits the child as well."
And finally:
"However, the mere fact that one parent opposes shared custody does not automatically imply a lack of cooperation on the part of the parents that would prevent shared custody."