The Federal Court sets guidelines for alternating custody.
In it, the Federal Supreme Court announces its intention to establish guidelines for the implementation of shared custody. This is generally welcome, as it clarifies the direction things will take for the courts even before the new maintenance law comes into effect. However,
upon closer inspection, the Federal Supreme Court's so-called guidelines turn out to be rather platitudes. The parents must be "capable of raising the child," they must not live too far apart—these are some of the reasons cited by the Federal Supreme Court. These are all still understandable justifications.
But then, once again, comes the inevitable argument that the parents must have "a good understanding", otherwise alternating custody is not possible.
And this is precisely where the Federal Court errs, as do many other courts and experts.
Of course, it would be desirable for the parents to have a good understanding. However, one mustn't overlook the fact that this attitude leads to exactly the opposite. If it's common knowledge that a little bit of conflict, a touch of defiance, is enough to enforce one's sole ownership claims, then lawyers will advise precisely that, and people will resort to exactly that tactic. And presto, the court will conclude that "the parents are fighting," even though, contrary to popular belief, it doesn't always take two to argue; one person is enough.
We urgently need more expertise in the courts. Knowledge about psychological settings, about alienation, about what happens in families during separation/divorce and why.
Only then can our courts produce correct judgments, and only then can the guidelines of the Federal Court truly be applied in a meaningful way.