|
Parental Authority in Divorced Families
When parents divorce, they must continue to make
decisions together regarding how to co-parent their
children. In some couples, decision-making about
the children may have gone smoothly in marriage,
but becomes conflict-ridden in divorce. In other
couples, parenting decisions have always been
conflictual and continue to be so in divorce. And
finally, in some couples, marital decision-making
conflicts are actually reduced by clearer
decision-making boundaries negotiated in divorce.
Regardless of how well decisions were negotiated in
marriage, divorce presents the necessity of
renegotiating many of the family routines, parental
roles, and household rules. A conscious look at how
decision-making is approached can help couples
avoid getting into power struggles that result in
the whole family suffering from painful
conflict.
There are three basic ways that decision-making
can be approached: by Cooperation, by Fighting, and
by Default. A cooperative decision is one is in
which both parents listen to each other and come to
an agreement together. Each party to a cooperative
agreement generally feels good about the process
and can faithfully execute the agreement. Children
benefit from the clarity their parents have about
what the agreement is and the reasoning behind the
agreement. Children do not suffer from loyalty
conflicts when they know that their parents have
made parenting decisions cooperatively. Knowing
this, most parents try to make decisions
cooperatively as much as possible.
Unfortunately, parents do not always agree. Even
if they could agree, it would be very burdensome to
try to negotiate every parenting decision through a
cooperative process. Different couples have
different tolerances for the time and energy that
cooperative decision-making can require. Divorced
parents often have very little patience for
cooperative negotiation because of the many painful
feelings brought on by the divorce. When there is
not enough time or patience for a cooperative
decision to be made, divorced parents often resort
to arguing with each other. If the arguments are
short, result in an agreement, and do not involve
the children, then they may be a satisfactory route
to a cooperative decision. If, however, the
arguments become protracted, do not lead to
resolution, and escalate to the point that the
children are affected (either by the children
witnessing the conflict or by the children actually
being drawn into the conflict), then a damaging
dynamic is present. Family research has repeatedly
shown that one of the most harmful conditions for
children is exposure to or involvement in their
parents’ conflict.
Default Decision-Making
Fortunately, there is an alternative to fighting
when a cooperative agreement is elusive. This
alternative is that decisions can be made by a
pre-negotiated default arrangement. Married couples
have many such default decision-making arrangements
that they employ when they disagree on any
particular issue. One example is that the wife may
defer to the husband about any conflict regarding
maintenance of the home, and the husband may defer
to the wife on any disagreement regarding interior
decorating. Another example may be that the
mother’s vote breaks any tie over how to
parent the children and the father’s vote
breaks any impasse over financial decisions. Some
couples have an alternating system. They informally
keep track of who got their way in the last
conflict and they let the other prevail in the
next. Each couple develops their own system of how
to use default decision-making when specific
disagreements fail to result in cooperative
agreements. The default decision-making process
helps reduce conflict, because it is an enduring
system that does not need to be renegotiated each
time a decision needs to be made. Thus a couple
with a good default system may not agree
cooperatively on each decision, but their
disagreements do not lead to fights. The default
system does not settle their disagreement, but it
settles the question of who will make the decision
if consensus cannot be reached. Couples without a
good default decision-making system are prone to
open conflict whenever disagreement is present.
A couple’s default decision-making process
might have been consciously negotiated; it may have
sprung from a mutually assumed sense of fairness;
or it may be a result of many arguments that
established the boundaries of who is in charge in
what type of decision. Regardless of how well a
married couple negotiated their default
decision-making process, it is likely to need
renegotiation in divorce. Perhaps the divorce is
occurring because no satisfactory default
decision-making process was ever negotiated in the
marriage. In this case, the establishment of two
households in divorce may help to define a clearer
default decision-making process for the divorced
parents. Or it may not. Whether divorced parents
increase or reduce their levels of conflict is
largely a factor of how well they renegotiate their
default decision-making process in light of their
new family constellation.
Default Decision-Making Options
Each couple or set of co-parents can establish
their own self-created default decision-making
arrangement. If divorced parents are wholly unable
to do this, they resort to the court to make their
default decisions for them. The process is usually
very expensive, full of conflict, and ultimately
unsatisfying, because the court can only offer
rigid templates that divorced parents must then fit
themselves into. The potential for a creatively
crafted system that works for both parents is lost.
Divorced parents who resort to legal action are
admitting their inability to successfully create
their own default decision-making boundaries. In
such cases co-parenting counselors are likely to be
dramatically more helpful than judges in producing
lasting conflict reducing solutions.
In crafting one’s own unique system there
are three basic patterns to work from: Single
Authority Parenting, Activity Specific Authority,
and Parallel Parenting. None of these exist in pure
form, but as basic patterns they each have their
respective pros and cons.
Single Authority Parenting
In Single Authority Parenting one parent is
agreed upon as the default decision-maker in most
or all parenting decisions. This arrangement is
most commonly seen in marriages with more
traditional role divisions. Often the mother is in
charge of the parenting and the father is dominant
in financial maters. In some traditional families
the father may officially be in charge of all
decisions, but unofficially he defers to the mother
on most parenting issues. In more fully patriarchal
families the father is the default authority on all
decisions, including parenting.
The advantages of Single Authority Parenting are
most evident when parenting skill is very unevenly
divided between the parents. A parent who spends
more time with the children or who has developed
stronger parenting skills may claim a natural
authority to make default parenting decisions. The
children consistently get the benefit of the more
skilled parent’s judgment. Likewise, the
children are protected from the poor judgment of an
unskilled or inexperienced parent. Additionally, if
the parent with the authority is doing most of the
parenting, then that parent is able to function
with a valuable sense of autonomy. This
parent’s authority is clear to the children
and to the other parent. This parent is likely to
take clear responsibility for all aspects of the
children’s lives, and is likely to experience
their role as important and fulfilling.
The disadvantages of Single Authority Parenting
lie mostly in the effect this system has on the
non-authority parent. Non-authority parents often
do not consider themselves important or find much
fulfillment in their role as parent. If they agree
that their parenting skills are poor in relation to
the authority parent, then they are likely to defer
most or all of the care-giving to that parent,
essentially depriving their children and themselves
of the potential for them to be an important
presence in their children’s lives. In
divorced families, non-authority co-parents are
much more likely to drop out of their
children’s lives completely. Without much
sense that they are important personally to their
children, the non-authority parent is also less
likely to want to continue to contribute
financially to children who essentially belong to
the authority parent.
When the non-authority parent does not agree
that the difference in parenting skills warrants a
Single Authority Parenting default decision-making
system, more trouble is likely. In order to
establish some autonomy as a parent, the
non-authority may subvert the authority parent in a
variety of ways. Often passive-aggressive tactics
are employed. The non-authority parent will not
directly oppose the authority parent on any issue,
but he or she will forget to comply, or half-way
comply, or misinterpret instructions. In this way
the non-authority parent creates some opportunity
to have autonomy without appearing to oppose the
authority parent. Passive-aggressive tactics
usually generate intense frustration in the
authority parent and often result in abusive
outbursts. These are experienced by the
non-authority parent and the children as further
reason to avoid openly defying the authority
parent. The children and non-authority parent then
become aligned in the mutual goal of gaining
autonomy without directly challenging the authority
of the dominant parent.
One specific passive-aggressive tactic that
deserves special note is secrecy. In order to avoid
the control of the authority parent, the
non-authority parent is likely to share less and
less information with the authority parent. While
married, such secrecy is likely to be limited. But
in two-household families, secrecy can become
pronounced. As the children learn that one parent
keeps things secret from the other to avoid being
controlled, so they learn that they can keep things
secret from either or both parents. Consequently,
the efforts of the authority parent to stay in
control of the children result in a situation
wherein the authority parent ends up with very
little control of the children anytime they are not
in direct sight.
These passive-aggressive tactics, including
secrecy, are not a result of either
co-parents’ personal moral failure. They are
not to be blamed on the non-authority parent, who
is simply trying to get some authority to be their
own parent. Nor are they to attributed to
“control issues” of the authority parent
(The deepest intent of the authority parent is not
to control the other parent. It is to insure the
best parenting for the children). Rather, these
dynamics are the predictable results of a failure
to negotiate a workable default decision-making
system. The Single Authority Parent system only
works to the extent that both parents agree to this
system. When one parent tries to unilaterally
impose this system, the other parent will likely
either leave the family altogether, or resist the
system with either open conflict or passive
aggressive chaos.
Activity Specific Authority
Another basic template for default co-parent
decision-making is Activity Specific Authority. In
this system each parent holds the default authority
to make conflicted decisions in different aspects
of their children’s lives. For instance, one
parent may decide what sports to involve the
children in, while the other parent may be dominant
in the children’s academic choices. Or one
parent may be granted the authority to determine
bedtime and curfew rules, while the other parent
gets to choose health care practices and providers.
Both parents agree to uphold the decisions of the
other parent whenever the children are involved in
the activity that the other parent has authority
over. It does not matter whose house the children
are in or which parent is currently on duty. What
matters is what activity children are involved
in.
In Activity Specific Authority co-parents
continue to attempt to reach cooperative decisions
whenever they can. When they cannot agree, however,
they at least agree upon who will make the final
call, based on who has authority in this realm of
activity. For instance, if Mom has authority on
health care decisions and Booby is sick at his
Dad’s house. Dad calls Mom and checks with her
about bringing Bobby in to see the doctor in his
neighborhood. Mom says, “No, take him to Dr.
Murray, the doctor Bobby usually sees
downtown.” Dad tries to convince Mom to agree
to using the closer doctor, but Mom is firm. So Dad
defaults to the standing agreement that Mom is in
charge of health care decisions. They end the call
and Bobby asks, “What doctor are we going
to?” Dad responds, “Well your Mom thinks
we should go to your regular doctor downtown, and I
usually let her make the decisions about doctors
when we disagree, so let’s go see Dr.
Murray”.
A working default decision-making system, based
on activity, can resolve conflicts that would
otherwise turn into fights. The main advantage of
this type of system is that it flexibly maximizes
the ability of each parent to shape the part of
their children’s lives that they have the most
interest or skill in. When one parent is more
concerned than the other parent about a
child’s success in learning a musical
instrument, for instance, it may make most sense
for that parent to have default authority over the
choice of instrument, teacher, practice schedule,
etc. In general, the parent awarded default
authority earns this privilege not only through
their concern or passion about the activity, but
also through their willingness to do most of the
work of actively shepherding the child in the
activity. Few co-parents will feel good about
carrying the burden of decisions made by an
uninvolved parent. But they may be willing to play
a supportive role for the sake of the child.
Consequently, activity specific default
decision-making authority may not be evenly split
between co-parents. Rather, the number of
activities a parent has default authority in is
likely to mirror the amount of time that parent
invests in parenting.
Activity Specific Authority parenting has some
disadvantages as well. Firstly, it may require
rather extensive negotiation of who has default
authority over which specific activities. There may
be some activities where both parents hope to claim
both involvement and authority. Further,
children’s lives keep changing as they grow.
This requires activity specific default parenting
agreements to regularly renegotiated. Fights can
break out in the time before a new default
agreement has been established. And during
negotiation, fights can break out over what the new
default agreements should be. Another problem is
that newly divorcing parents must negotiate many
activity specific default authority decisions all
at once to accommodate new living situations and
parenting schedules. This can be very stressful to
divorcing couples, especially if they are
simultaneously negotiating stressful financial
matters.
Thus, while an Activity Specific Authority
default decision-making plan can make the best use
of any family’s specific parenting skill and
interest resources, it is not likely to prevent all
co-parent conflict. Divorced parents still face the
problem of what to do when they do not agree (or do
not yet agree) on who has the default authority for
a particular activity.
Parallel Parenting
Parallel parenting is a default parenting
authority system wherein each parent has the
authority to make any contested parenting decisions
when it is their time with the children. The rules
and choices each parent makes may be different from
the rules in the other parent’s house.
Children learn that Dad does things one way and Mom
does them another. Conflict is avoided by
respecting the autonomy of each parent to make
their own decisions on their own time and in their
own homes. Frustration is minimized by each parent
releasing expectations that the other parent will
comply with anything not specifically agreed to by
both parties.
Parallel parents will hopefully continue to make
as many cooperative decisions as possible. In this
way the children can have more consistency as they
go between households. Parallel parents also
hopefully negotiate as many activity specific
authority agreements as possible. This way the
strength of each parents’ interests and skills
are carried over into the other parent’s
household. But when cooperation or activity
specific agreements cannot be reached, parallel
parenting offers a final option to avoid conflict.
As such, parallel parenting is the default of
default decision-making plans.
Resorting to parallel parenting is not ideal. It
lacks the teamwork and other advantages of activity
specific authority parenting and cooperative
decision-making. It does, however, have three main
positive attributes. First, it is easy to
understand. It does not take a lot of negotiation
to define who the authority is on any given issue.
All that is needed is a parenting schedule. Once
that is established, co-parents can attempt
agreement on any issue they face. If they are
unable to resolve it, the authority automatically
rests with the parent in charge at the time.
Secondly, parallel parenting safeguards the
autonomy of each parent. When parents are free to
make their own decisions they are more likely to
take responsibility for those decisions, learn from
their mistakes, develop their own authentic
parenting style, and find more satisfaction and
fulfillment in their role as a parent. Parallel
parenting offers some parents a sense of autonomy
in parenting that they never had when married.
Consequently, some parents become better parents in
divorce than they were while married. And thirdly,
parallel parenting, if both parties agree to it, is
very effective in reducing parental conflict. Once
the alternative are exhausted, parallel parenting
offers the last chance for decisions to be made
without destruction to the family. If parallel
parenting is rejected as the final default, then
adversarial court battles or complete estrangement
are likely. Parallel parenting may not be ideal,
but the alternative of unending conflict is
decidedly worse.
The disadvantages of parallel parenting are
several. Children may initially suffer from
confusion and loyalty conflicts about the
differences in the rules between households. They
will not automatically know that it is okay to
break some of Dad’s rules in Mom’s house.
Children are aided in this confusion when both
parents explain that each parent is the authority
in their own home. Research on divorced children
shows that they benefit from consistency
(particularly during the divorce process), but it
also shows that children can successfully adapt to
two households and two different parenting styles.
In fact, there is sometimes a benefit to children
in having a variety of role modeling to choose from
(presuming that both parents are have adequate
parenting skill).
Another disadvantage of parallel parenting is
that it can lead to less exchange of information
about the children. Without the need to make
decisions together, fewer conversations happen. The
result is that more parenting mistakes are made
because of a lack of communication. It may be that
no one told Dad about the last minute dress
rehearsal on his night. Or it may be that no one
told Mom that Billy didn’t get much sleep last
night, so a nap might be helpful. Parallel parents
may get so comfortable with their default plan that
they no longer push themselves to improve their
co-parenting by continuing to try to make
cooperative agreements. The children suffer from
this complacency when their parents could be
developing and modeling ever increasing conflict
resolution skills.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of parallel
parenting is the loss of control each parent
experiences when the child is with the other
parent. This loss can be particularly difficult for
a parent who has been providing the bulk of the
care-giving. While this parent may need relief from
single parenting, she or he may also suffer anxiety
over whether the children are safe in the care of
the less experienced parent. In cases of child
abuse or neglect, these fears need serious
consideration. In cases where the other parent is
an adequate care-giver, however, the burden may be
on the primary care-giver to let go of their usual
role in order to respect the boundaries necessary
for the other parent to experience some autonomy
and authority as a parent. If the role of parent is
the dominant part of a primary care-giver’s
identity even a temprary letting go of this role
can be disorienting and/or grief producing. Often
ongoing parental conflict is a factor of the
primary care-giver resisting the feelings
associated with this letting go.
Alternatively, parallel parenting can also
thrust an inexperienced care-giver into a single
parenting role without any available back-up.
Children can suffer from the mistakes that a poorly
skilled parent may make, especially if a parallel
parenting arrangement is minimizing communication
with the primary care-giver. If those mistakes are
serious enough, they can damage the newly
autonomous relationship between the less
experienced parent and the children. Thus it is
vital for co-parents without sufficient experience
in care-giving to prepare themselves well for their
single parenting duties. Preparations may include:
setting up a child safe and child friendly home,
reading about child development, attending
parenting classes, building relationships with
other families of same age children, building
relationships with the children’s other
care-givers or teachers, and identifying community
resources for parents. Probably the most valuable
resource for an inexperienced parent, however, is
the other parent! When parents can clearly
negotiate their default parenting authority
agreements, they can better exchange communication
about how to best take care of their children. In
this way the children become safer in the care of
the less experienced parent.
Fighting Over the Default Plan
Default decision-making plans can be very
effective at reducing parental conflict. Until a
default plan is in place, however, conflict may
rage over what the default plan should be. Often a
parent who wants to make decisions cooperatively
will actually fight with the other parent rather
than accept any default arrangement. This parent
may believe that he/she is advocating for the high
road of cooperation, but to the children and the
other parent, it still looks like he/she wants the
control of veto power over every decision. In
reality, neither parent is being cooperative unless
an actual agreement is being made. Thus neither
parent involved in a fight can claim that the
fighting is the other parent’s responsibility.
When attempts to get cooperation fail, fighting
about why is not preferable to accepting a default
resolution.
Fighting can also occur in spite of an existing
default plan when one parent uses the default plan
to avoid responsible efforts to make as many
cooperative agreements as possible. As discussed
above, this type of complacency is not good
co-parenting. Ultimately, lack of reasonable
efforts to make cooperative agreements when
possible will undermine the effectiveness of any
default plan to settle conflict. It will also erode
each co-parent’s respect for the other
parent.
Summary
Since parental conflict is particularly damaging
to children, divorced parents should consciously
negotiate how they will make decisions and avoid
conflict. Cooperative decisions are most ideal, but
not always possible. When cooperative
decision-making fails, conflict can still be
avoided by a good default decision-making
agreement. Such agreements are pre-negotiated
understandings of who has the authority to make
decisions when consensus cannot be reached. Default
decision-making systems may need periodic
renegotiation, but they are not re-evaluated with
each new issue. There is no pure type of default
decision-making plan. Each couple must negotiate
(directly or indirectly) their own system. The
basic templates include Activity Specific Authority
and Parallel Parenting. Parallel parenting, because
it requires the least negotiation, is usually the
default of default decision-making systems. Without
any default plan divorced families are likely to
suffer either severe estrangement or ongoing
conflict. Thus, while default plans may not be
ideal, and they may be difficult to adjust to, they
are necessary tools for every set of divorced
co-parents.
© 2010 Tim
Hartnett
Other Father Issues,
Books
* * *
Parents are the bones on which children sharpen
their teeth. - Peter Ustinov
Tim
Hartnett, MFT is father to Molly at their home in
Santa Cruz, CA. Tim also works part time as a
writer, psychotherapist and men's group leader. If
you have any feedback, or would like to receive the
monthly column, "Daddyman Speaks" by Tim Hartnett
regularly via email, (free and confidential) send
your name and email address to E-Mail
Tim Hartnett, 911 Center St. Suite "C", Santa Cruz,
CA 95060, 831.464.2922 voice & fax.
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
