When couples have children of infant and toddler age, the breakdown of marriage is often followed by intense and bitter argument over allowing the child to have an overnight visit and sleep away from the familiar home. In most cases, the mother is the custodial parent and continues to live in the marital home, while the father is more likely to be the one who moves out, lives elsewhere, and does the “visiting”.
Mothers are very likely to resist overnight visits for young children. They are concerned that the father is unaware of the child’s bedtime rituals or needs, that the child may be distressed by the experience, or even that a father who has behaved violently in the past may lose his temper if the child cries or fusses in the unfamiliar night-time setting. Fathers, on the other hand, may be concerned that the child spends less time with them than with the mothers and may therefore be less attached to the fathers. They may also believe that if the child does not form a strong attachment to the father in the first couple of years, no real relationship will ever be possible.
However the estranged couple work things out, this problem will pass (and of course will be replaced by different issues). The child will get older and reasons to resist overnight visits will gradually disappear. At the beginning, though, the overnight issue seems to be of overwhelming importance. In a recent special issue of the journal Family Court Review (2011, Vol. 49), the issue editor noted that when she surveyed readers to ask what they wanted to know about attachment and child custody, 60% of them asked what to do about overnights.
Several well-known psychiatrists and psychologists who contributed to the issue made a point of commenting on the overnight question. And all of them said about the same thing: overnight visits are problematic for about the first two years of the child’s life. Depending on the child, it may be best to wait as late as age 4 before beginning overnights (George, Solomon & McIntosh [2011]. Divorce in the nursery: On infants and overnight care. Family Court Review, 49, 521-528). The reasoning behind this advice is that children have real individual differences in temperament (for instance, the ease with which they accept a new situation) and in language development (which allows them to understand what they are told about the length of a visit). Children who are easily distressed, who have little concept of time, and who are still immature in their understanding of language may interpret an overnight visit as permanent abandonment by the custodial parent and may not be able to communicate their fears to the other parent-- who may have no wish to hear of the child’s longing for the divorced spouse. When children have handicapping conditions that affect communication and cognition, their level of development may be much more important than their chronological age.
But what if there are no overnights? Does this mean that the child’s relationship to the noncustodial parent is negated from the beginning? Charles Zeanah, the well-known attachment researcher, commented about this: “it’s not necessary for both parents to have attachment relationships with the child in the early years. That can happen later, when the child has more sophisticated abilities to sustain attachment relationships over time and place. Where it is possible, it does make sense for the child to keep contact at the level of comfort and familiarity until they are ready for more” (Lieberman, Zeanah, & McIntosh [2011]. Attachment perspectives on domestic violence and the law. Family Court Review,49, 529-538). Alan Sroufe, another leading attachment researcher, said, “I think that if parents, judges, lawyers, and so on took the view that attachment is a gradual building process, and that each relationship is built on its own terms, there would be less paranoia about this… even if they had no overnights for the first 2 years” (Sroufe & McIntosh [2011]. Divorce and attachment relationships: The longitudinal journey. Family Court Review, 49, 464-473).
These commentators are stressing the best interests of the child, a vague standard indeed, but one which we can clearly distinguish from an emphasis on parents’ rights. They seem to agree that it’s in the child’s best interest to have as calm an infancy and toddlerhood as possible and not to be asked to adjust to unnecessary changes and transitions. They also agree that two caring parents-- even if separated-- are better than one, but that there is no natural process that demands that both sets of relationships must develop simultaneously and early on. The fact that no “window of attachment” closes at age 2 means that it’s possible both to preserve family connections and to support a child’s early needs for a peaceful life.
Separated parents with very young children would do well to take these cautions to heart, but at the same time they may want to consider whether they want to try out visits with an eye to overnights. A gradual approach, including nap-time at the noncustodial residence, may give them an idea whether a child is ready to take the step to an overnight stay. If the child copes well with one overnight visit, it is wise to wait a while for the next one rather than rushing to a new schedule of frequent changes and risking overwhelming him or her. But none of this will work well unless the parents are able to concentrate on the child’s needs and reactions rather than hurrying to blame each other for any distress the child shows.
When overnight visits begin, one point that can be difficult for separated parents to deal with is co-sleeping. Plenty of parents let infants and toddlers sleep with them part or all of the time (and I am far from criticizing this practice). In addition, if a father leaves the household, the mother is likely to respond to the child’s distress and her own by letting the child sleep in her bed. What happens, then, if the child stays overnight with the father? Can the co-sleeping mother deal with having the child share a bed with the father, or will this trigger concerns about sexual behavior? How does the father comfort the child who is accustomed to sharing a bed, except by co-sleeping? This highly emotional situation is one in which straightforward discussion with neutral parties is essential in order to avoid distress, fears, and accusations that are in the great majority of cases completely unrealistic.
P.S. The comments of Alan Sroufe about attachment as a gradual building process are also highly relevant to adoption issues.
P.P. S. The issue of Family Court Review I'm referring to is available for free on line. Google the journal name and you'll see how to get to the articles.
Showing posts with label divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label divorce. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Sunday, September 26, 2010
A Good Law: School Assignment for Foster and Homeless Children
“There ought to be a law”-- we’ve all said that at times. Unfortunately, not every law has the outcomes we’d like to see, and it can be even harder to alter a law than to create a new one.
Most states have problematic but well-intentioned laws about children’s attendance at public schools. Children are generally expected to attend the school to which their residential district assigns them-- sometimes a school near the child’s home, but sometimes not. Because school expenses are paid by the school district of the child’s residence, there is concern about having payment go from one district to another, except in the unusual case where one district can offer needed services and another cannot. If a school district discovers that a child’s family has moved to another area, the child will often not be allowed to continue to attend the familiar school, even for a few remaining weeks of the school year. A few, but by no means all, school districts will allow parents to pay substantial fees to keep their child in a public school even though the family lives out of the district. Even when arrangements can be made for the child to attend school out of district, however, the distance between the home and the desired school may be prohibitive unless parents can manage transportation.
The result of these laws about school assignment is that children whose living situation changes must very often change schools as well as homes. Two groups who have been strongly affected by this are children who are moved from their familiar (but neglectful or abusive) home to the care of a foster (or “resource”) family living in some other area, and children whose families have become homeless and are residing in a shelter or similar environment. Because familiar schools and established relationships with teachers and with other children are important stabilizing factors in school-age children’s lives, the requirement that they change schools removes yet another element of stability in situations where unfamiliarity of people and/or places is already creating stress. Such changes create problems both for children’s emotional lives and for their educational process. Entering a new school always means a loss of friends, and may mean conflicts as a newcomer has to make his or her way into the pecking order; these changes, when combined with the emotional impact of foster placement or homelessness, may interfere with a child’s self-control and result in fighting, sulking, or withdrawal that generates even more negative consequences in the school environment. In addition, because schools do not have identical educational practices or daily lesson plans, children changing schools may miss instruction, and busy teachers may not be aware of developing educational problems.
Today, though, we have reason to be delighted that there is a new law in New Jersey that should have a very beneficial effect on foster children and homeless children (see http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A2500/2137_R3.PDF). This law protects children placed in foster care from having to change schools, when moving to the district where the foster parents live, if it is different from the area where the parental home was. It also protects children living in homeless shelters or group homes from having to change schools, allowing them to continue at their familiar schools. Of especial importance, this law establishes payment for transportation of children to their accustomed schools, and prevents municipalities from making laws that would discriminate between use of schools and recreational facilities by children living with their families in the district and by children in other situations. The New Jersey legislation thus removes some emotional and educational obstacles that have further interfered with the positive development of children whose living situations were disrupted by situations that themselves had negative impacts.
What about other children whose lives are disrupted if they have to change schools at awkward points? A group who are obviously affected are children of divorce. Children whose parents divorce frequently find themselves moving to a new house or apartment because parents who are dividing their resources can no longer maintain the living standards that were possible with combined incomes. The familiar home, neighborhood, and friends are replaced by unfamiliarity, and often by unfamiliar surroundings that are less comfortable or safe than the original home. The move may be at the beginning of a long school vacation, which would give the children time to become acclimated and even make some new friends before starting at a new school-- but it may just as well be in the middle of a school term, with nothing to soften the “school shock” as they plunge into an entirely new situation. And, of course, many school systems nowadays have abandoned the old-fashioned long summer vacation in favor of short terms with a few weeks’ break between them. In these cases, children may lose much that could offer comfort and buffer the impact of divorce on their mood and learning.
Let’s hope that the legislation for foster and homeless children may be the beginning of more child- and family-friendly school policies for all families undergoing significant changes.
Most states have problematic but well-intentioned laws about children’s attendance at public schools. Children are generally expected to attend the school to which their residential district assigns them-- sometimes a school near the child’s home, but sometimes not. Because school expenses are paid by the school district of the child’s residence, there is concern about having payment go from one district to another, except in the unusual case where one district can offer needed services and another cannot. If a school district discovers that a child’s family has moved to another area, the child will often not be allowed to continue to attend the familiar school, even for a few remaining weeks of the school year. A few, but by no means all, school districts will allow parents to pay substantial fees to keep their child in a public school even though the family lives out of the district. Even when arrangements can be made for the child to attend school out of district, however, the distance between the home and the desired school may be prohibitive unless parents can manage transportation.
The result of these laws about school assignment is that children whose living situation changes must very often change schools as well as homes. Two groups who have been strongly affected by this are children who are moved from their familiar (but neglectful or abusive) home to the care of a foster (or “resource”) family living in some other area, and children whose families have become homeless and are residing in a shelter or similar environment. Because familiar schools and established relationships with teachers and with other children are important stabilizing factors in school-age children’s lives, the requirement that they change schools removes yet another element of stability in situations where unfamiliarity of people and/or places is already creating stress. Such changes create problems both for children’s emotional lives and for their educational process. Entering a new school always means a loss of friends, and may mean conflicts as a newcomer has to make his or her way into the pecking order; these changes, when combined with the emotional impact of foster placement or homelessness, may interfere with a child’s self-control and result in fighting, sulking, or withdrawal that generates even more negative consequences in the school environment. In addition, because schools do not have identical educational practices or daily lesson plans, children changing schools may miss instruction, and busy teachers may not be aware of developing educational problems.
Today, though, we have reason to be delighted that there is a new law in New Jersey that should have a very beneficial effect on foster children and homeless children (see http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A2500/2137_R3.PDF). This law protects children placed in foster care from having to change schools, when moving to the district where the foster parents live, if it is different from the area where the parental home was. It also protects children living in homeless shelters or group homes from having to change schools, allowing them to continue at their familiar schools. Of especial importance, this law establishes payment for transportation of children to their accustomed schools, and prevents municipalities from making laws that would discriminate between use of schools and recreational facilities by children living with their families in the district and by children in other situations. The New Jersey legislation thus removes some emotional and educational obstacles that have further interfered with the positive development of children whose living situations were disrupted by situations that themselves had negative impacts.
What about other children whose lives are disrupted if they have to change schools at awkward points? A group who are obviously affected are children of divorce. Children whose parents divorce frequently find themselves moving to a new house or apartment because parents who are dividing their resources can no longer maintain the living standards that were possible with combined incomes. The familiar home, neighborhood, and friends are replaced by unfamiliarity, and often by unfamiliar surroundings that are less comfortable or safe than the original home. The move may be at the beginning of a long school vacation, which would give the children time to become acclimated and even make some new friends before starting at a new school-- but it may just as well be in the middle of a school term, with nothing to soften the “school shock” as they plunge into an entirely new situation. And, of course, many school systems nowadays have abandoned the old-fashioned long summer vacation in favor of short terms with a few weeks’ break between them. In these cases, children may lose much that could offer comfort and buffer the impact of divorce on their mood and learning.
Let’s hope that the legislation for foster and homeless children may be the beginning of more child- and family-friendly school policies for all families undergoing significant changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
