Joint custody from the SP’s perspective

Worrying together – Silvia Schenker, SP National Councilor Basel City

It is to be hoped and granted to every child that they can be in regular contact with both parents and share everyday life. This should be possible regardless of the marital status of the parents and regardless of how father and mother relate to each other.

Striving for this ideal must be everyone's concern. The reality is different. Not only due to divorce, but also for other reasons, many children grow up with one parent and see the other parent more or less regularly or rarely.

Now a new legal provision is to introduce joint custody as the norm. This proposal is being discussed very controversially. Proponents are convinced that this is a step towards shared responsibility for both parents, even after a divorce. Others fear that with joint custody as the norm, children will become the playthings of arguing parents, without changing the unequally distributed burden of responsibility for care.

For me, the best interests of the child are my top priority when I assess the Federal Council's proposals for a new legal provision. The framework conditions must be designed in such a way that this concern is taken into account to the greatest possible extent. Nevertheless, we must guard against wishful thinking in the legislative process: joint custody is only good and sensible if the parents are able to exercise this joint custody effectively in everyday life without having to constantly fight with each other over every decision. Shared care also requires shared or alternate caring and care. The distribution of rights and obligations must be in balance. The parents must be able to credibly demonstrate that they want to structure and live custody in this spirit. If the court comes to the conclusion that this is not possible, the possibility of sole custody must also exist in the future. Because anyone who does not fulfill their obligations cannot unilaterally assert rights.

However, if one parent seeks joint custody, it should not be solely within the other parent's power to refuse. In such cases, a suitable agency would have to be entrusted with mediating between the parents and trying to work out the basis for joint custody.

Practicing parenthood together after a (conflictual) separation is not easy. In the interest of the children, as many couples as possible should tackle this difficult task. For the sake of their children and for their own sake.  

VeV comment 

The VeV has been campaigning for the introduction of joint custody as a rule for years. We are all the more pleased to hear more and more constructive suggestions and criticism from the SP. Both the proposal for the parental agreement, which is worth examining, and the present text show that the SP has also recognized the signs of the times and is ready to take the political route towards shared parental responsibility.

The fears raised by Ms. Schenker were for a long time the reason for a vehement rejection of shared parental custody in general. There has obviously been a change in direction here, which is to be welcomed.

Of course, these fears should be taken seriously and are entirely understandable on our part.

The child's interests must always be at the forefront of all decisions, because only with this focus can lasting, good solutions be found.

However, it should not be forgotten that circumstances can change over the years. So what was in the best interests of the child at the time of the decision may no longer necessarily be so a few years later. Flexible solutions are required here - maintaining parental custody for both parents is certainly one of them.

We are also of the opinion that only shared parental responsibility really serves the children; we also consider a mere right to have a say without actual participation to be questionable. However, it should not be overlooked what custody is actually about. It's not about everyday decisions but about essential decisions in the child's life. In our view, the fact that a second parent may intervene correctively and take an opposing stance in such decisions means that the interests of the child are better protected in such decisions because the controversy leads to discussions and compromises.

From our point of view, the implementation of shared parental responsibility also includes the comprehensive introduction of ordered mediation. Only through such accompanying measures is it possible in the long term to help parents who are separated, to maintain the parental level and to maintain the dialogue about the child's minimal needs.

With this in mind, thank you very much, Ms. Schenker, for your open and modern attitude on this issue.