It is fairly common for people to think of the divorce process as being aimed at equality -- a fair share of the accrued marital assets and so on. It is also common for Connecticut residents to presume this tenet extends to child custody, as parents being given equal time with their children seems logical. However, some experts are saying this may not be the case, and it could influence how custody cases are resolved in the future.
Primarily, the concern over equal-time child custody comes from the root of what child custody agreements are supposed to achieve. That is to say, when judges rule for an exact split of time between two parents, some experts say they are ruling so that the parents will feel fairly treated. In point of fact, the goal of child custody is to minimize upheaval and maintain consistency for the children affected.
It is a sad reality that some divorcing couples treat child custody as another asset to be "won," which is why the drive toward "fairness" is so strong. However, in some cases, an unequal split of time that puts a child in a stable environment -- for example, near his or her school or in a neighborhood where he or she has put down roots -- can be more beneficial. Additionally, while some parents are able to co-parent effectively despite being split, many cannot. The unequal split of time helps to guarantee consistency in rules and other elements of child rearing.
Parents generally want what is best for their children, as Connecticut residents can attest. In cases of child custody, it is important for both parents to consider how a custody split will influence their kids. If necessary, they can then seek out the support available throughout the state to facilitate the agreement that will make the most sense for the children involved.
Source: herald-dispatch.com, "John Rosemond: Equal custody in divorce not in child's best interest", John Rosemond, Feb. 18, 2015