Observer 23/05 of November 10, 2005 by Edit Lier

In nine out of ten divorce cases, the mother is awarded sole custody. This means she has the power to determine how often the father sees the child – a power that is often abused.

Everyone talks about the best interests of the child, even when they're talking past the child's actual well-being. "The term is worn out, hackneyed, and therefore almost unusable," says CVP National Councillor Reto Wehrli. He advocates for parents to automatically receive joint custody in divorce cases. The word "best interests of the child" appeared only once in the corresponding motion he submitted to the National Council: in a direct quote.

The motion was referred to the Federal Council by a large majority during this autumn session. However, proponents and opponents clashed like quarreling spouses in a bitter divorce. The dismissive stance of the otherwise progressive SP women's trio Jacqueline Fehr, Anita Thanei, and Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, in particular, provoked head-shaking within their own party (see accompanying article "Chantal Galladé: Parents always remain parents, even after a divorce"). There's no question: Joint custody remains a contentious issue.

Free rein for revenge:
Under current legislation, custody is generally awarded to only one parent in cases of divorce or separation. In nine out of ten cases, the mother wins – the father is left out. When exercising his visitation rights, the father is dependent on the mother's goodwill (see the accompanying article "Separation: What Parents Need to Know"). If she prevents contact out of hurt feelings or revenge, the excluded father feels reduced to a mere provider. Estrangement from the child is only a matter of time.

“Under the current regulations, mothers effectively have a veto right, which fathers perceive as a key power factor in contentious separation and divorce proceedings,” observes Markus Theunert. His position as president of männer.ch, the umbrella organization of Swiss men’s and fathers’ associations, is that disagreeing parents should at least be able to compete on a level playing field. His association, together with the Federation of Swiss Women’s Organizations, alliance F, aims to contribute to a gender-democratic and politically sound solution. Next summer, the organizers will jointly invite experts to an interdisciplinary conference. Sibylle Burger-Bono, president of alliance F and a divorce lawyer with twelve years of experience, emphasizes: “We want to depoliticize the discussion and not pit women against men.”

French-speaking Switzerland has it better.
Since the introduction of the new divorce law five years ago, married parents and cohabiting couples can also apply for joint custody. In practice, this option is used and judged differently, as a report from the Federal Office of Justice shows. A cultural divide is emerging between French-speaking and German-speaking Switzerland: In 2003, 40 percent of all children of divorced parents in the cantons of Geneva, Jura, Neuchâtel, and Vaud were placed under joint custody. Nationwide, the figure is 26 percent. One possible reason for this discrepancy lies in the legal system. In a survey of French-speaking judges, lawyers, and mediators, more than three-quarters of respondents had a positive view of the regulation, which has been in effect since 2000.

At the guardianship authority of the city of Zurich, granting joint parental custody is a daily occurrence – and the trend is rising. Last year, 255 couples were granted joint custody; the previous year, the number was 201.

Now science is set to help
. Everyone talks about the well-being of children. But who talks to the children? How do they feel during divorce proceedings? Are their interests adequately considered? What criteria do judges use to decide in favor of joint custody? How do children and adolescents experience their relationship with their parents after a divorce? This complex of issues is now being investigated for the first time in a broad, interdisciplinary project within the framework of a national research program. Leading the project are the University of Zurich and the Zurich Marie Meierhofer Institute for the Child (MMI).

“Children’s needs, such as care, visitation rights, and custody, as well as the children’s perspective, are the focus of our study,” explains Heidi Simoni, Head of Practice-Based Research at the MMI. Those involved in the project are convinced that, with scientifically sound data, they can make a significant contribution to the upcoming political debate on joint custody. The first analyses are expected by the middle of next year. “This time, science is one step ahead of politics,” says Heidi Simoni with satisfaction.

The Federal Supreme Court had to address the welfare of children twice this year. In a landmark ruling, it stipulated that in divorce proceedings, a child must be heard after reaching the age of six before judges decide on the allocation of parental custody. Previously, the age limit varied between ten and twelve years. The Federal Supreme Court also sent a clear signal regarding visitation rights: the child's welfare must always be the paramount consideration – any interests of the parents must take a back seat.

The alienated child:
The legal shortcomings of the divorce and post-divorce phase have a negative impact on the development of children and adolescents, as German family law expert Ludwig Salgo recently demonstrated within the framework of the ongoing National Science Foundation project "Children and Divorce." In Germany, joint custody is the norm. The author of the book "The Child's Advocate" calls for direct support to be offered to children: "Trained individuals must be appointed as interviewers."

Salgo proposes offering counseling and information services in schools as well. For parents contemplating divorce, he goes even further, advocating for mandatory state-run counseling, similar to the requirement in the US state of Florida for parents of children under 17 in cases of separation and divorce. "Sometimes I wish we had the church-run marriage counseling back, which used to emphasize the responsibilities of prospective parents," he concludes.

Men who feel cheated out of their visitation rights are increasingly invoking an argument imported from the USA: PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome). This involves the accusation that the child is being alienated through conscious or unconscious manipulation by one parent, usually the mother: she tries to turn the child against the father, disregards visitation rights, or claims the child doesn't want to see the father. The father, in turn, often insists on "contact at any cost." In such a deadlocked situation, the controversial "exposure therapy," also originating in the USA, is sometimes employed.

Photos of naked girls.
Whether it's parental alienation or the suspension of visitation rights: The affected parent feels powerless. This is also true for Stefan S.* Since the separation of the unmarried parents four years ago, their five-year-old son Thomas* has lived with his mother. A year and a half ago, S. learned that several people are accusing the mother's current boyfriend, Heinz P.*, of sexually abusing her when she was a child. Since then, the father has found no peace. He submitted several written confirmations from the individuals involved to the guardianship authority in Biberist, Solothurn, and filed a report of child endangerment.

His anxiety intensified when he learned that a former victim had sent the guardianship authorities photos of naked girls that Heinz P. had taken years earlier. "Since the report of endangerment in July 2004, the authorities have done nothing to protect my son," Stefan S. complains. Only after pressure from his lawyer did the authorities release the questionable photos of Heinz P. The fact that the statute of limitations has expired does not reassure S.

“No acute danger”
The Biberist guardianship authority emphasizes that the fact that the abuse was time-barred was never relevant to them. After an initial assessment, they concluded that the child was not in acute danger. They informed the mother that she bears primary responsibility for her son's protection and well-being. Further interviews with Stefan S.'s former partner were deemed “credible.” The psychological evaluation of the son, ordered a year ago, was expanded to include the question of potential endangerment in order to have “another important basis for decision-making.”

Stefan S. filed an appeal against the expert opinion: "To assess whether my son is at risk from contact with Heinz P., no child psychiatric evaluation is necessary." It would only place an unnecessary burden on his child and change nothing about P.'s past. The father and his lawyer cannot understand the guardianship authority's hesitant approach: "It would be cynical and irresponsible to wait until the child's physical integrity has already been violated to take action."

While the mother obtained supervised visitation rights for the father of only one afternoon per month, even though there was no evidence against him, Heinz P. is allowed unrestricted contact with the child. Had there been even the slightest suspicion of sexual abuse against the biological father, the guardianship authorities would have immediately prohibited him from any contact with the child until the matter was clarified. "It's crazy," says Stefan S.

*All names have been changed

“Excluded and betrayed”: The amputee father

"Daddy, we're not coming to you": The sidelined father

"Our child is seriously ill": The demonized father

Chantal Galladé: "Parents always remain parents, even after a divorce"