tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2743746633913926150.post2674396709341068730..comments2024-03-12T07:00:44.143-04:00Comments on CHILDMYTHS: Overnights, Divorce, and a New Article By Richard WarshakJean Mercerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619393019771381980noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2743746633913926150.post-85070795334138340582014-03-08T09:46:24.131-05:002014-03-08T09:46:24.131-05:00Dear Richard-- Thanks so much for these extensive...Dear Richard-- Thanks so much for these extensive comments. I want to write more about this in the next few days, so perhaps we can have some further dialogue.Jean Mercerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619393019771381980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2743746633913926150.post-54698234659479150112014-03-07T12:09:50.522-05:002014-03-07T12:09:50.522-05:00Thank you for your comments about my paper. I agre...Thank you for your comments about my paper. I agree about the critical importance of emphasizing that recommendations for children who have relationships with both parents cannot be automatically applied to situations where children have a relationship with one parent and no prior relationship with the other parent, or a peripheral, at best, relationship. For this reason I mentioned this very early in the article (at the end of the Introduction) and in recommendation #7 in the Conclusions section. Also, to underscore the importance of understanding the context in which the recommendations are applicable, the list of recommendations begins by referring the reader to the limitations spelled out in #7. <br /><br />The paper is clear that we cannot conclude that the current state of evidence supports a blanket policy or legal presumption regarding overnights. But the scholars who endorsed the recommendations agree that a policy of discouraging overnights, as some advocate, is not evidence-based and that the theoretical and practical considerations favoring overnights for most young children are more compelling than concerns that overnights might jeopardize children’s development.<br /><br />Recommendations such as those in my paper can serve as a context in which parents create individual plans that fit their circumstances. Anecdotes are helpful in fleshing out the way ideas are translated into practice, particularly when they are presented in the context of empirical data. But policy makers and decision makers must be careful not to rely on the emotional appeal of an anecdote as a substitute for rational and critical thinking. Among others, Kahneman has shown how arousing emotion can bypass appropriate interpretation of data. In her recent article, <i>Woozles: Their Role in Custody Law Reform, Parenting Plans, and Family Court</i>, Linda Nielsen underscores how advocates rely on dramatic stories that convey an unbalanced and simplistic view of difficult issues. In so doing, the advocates misuse data to support their agenda and they mislead the public. Just as I have consulted on cases where courts have ordered placements and residential schedules that did not appear to meet young children’s needs, I have worked on many cases where children missed out on meaningful contact with a parent and grandparents because the other parent insisted on leaving children with a succession of babysitters and daycare attendants. The case you described is not at all typical of the average family. Such cases require sensitive judicial management. But they should not dictate policy for the majority of children being raised by parents who live apart from each other.<br /><br />Thanks, again, for reading the consensus report and calling your readers’ attention to it. I welcome dialogue about the paper.<br />Richard A. Warshak, Ph.D.http://www.warshak.com/noreply@blogger.com