Psychological Testimony Regarding the Relocation of Children After Divorce - Essay Example

 Psychological testimony regarding the relocation of children after divorce Society provides different roles to different parents in a family setup. The movement of parents from one given location to the other is brought about by the commitments and roles that the society expects. The expectations are high as far as the welfare of children is concerned. In times where the parents get divorced the most affected party is usually the child. The tendency of one party to psychically move to new locations eventually affects the child hence the laws designed are aimed at ensuring the welfare of the child is given priority before any action is taken. These circumstances would be the basis of the essay with focus being on the custody laws that protect the child from being affected by the actions of their parents. Historical laws and custody standards indicated the need to offer the child the much needed support. The joint custody standards set it clear on who should take care of the child after divorce. It favors the parent who during their stay provided the most of the support enjoyed by the child. The law is aimed at ensuring stability to the child in terms of the up keeping (Lamb, 2010). The result of this law is the single parent effect where the child would have to enjoy the presence of a single parent with the best of interest being ignored. The preferred parent according to the custody procedure was required to undertake all the required responsibilities of the Childs upkeep. These responsibilities ranged from moral support to financial support. The ignored responsibility of the second parent is brought about by the laws argument that the child needs stability while conduction himself in matters that concerns his or her own welfare. This procedure allows the parent to freely move as it states clear on who should bear responsibility in this case (Blaisure& Geser, 1995). The result of the divorce is usually characterized by movement of either one of the parent with an aim of avoiding contact from their previous partners or movement of both parents from a given location due to the frustrated nature of the part involved. The effect has a long term effect on the child. The presence of a single parent creates a negative influence on the child on matters marriage. The long distance created by the relocated parents would mean that the child would stick to one location and denied parental love depending on the parent involved in the divorce requirement (Amato & Sobolewski, 2001). The case is different from those children who have lived with single parents since birth. The relocation effect is felt by the separated parents as the move would introduce a foreign aspect to the child. The change of environment in the child’s upkeep emotionally and psychologically affects the child involved in the separation rows. The effect is usually felt academically as the move would guarantee the child a change of school. The change of school depending on the available curriculum would negatively affect their performance. Braver (2003) related poor performance among children who have had their parents divorced to relocation. The psychical movement does not only affect the child’s emotional well being but rather affects their thinking ability which is essential in learning new concepts. The movement by the parent may be disadvantageous in circumstances where the child enjoys a good relationship with both parents. The choice to move to new locations may be influenced by the negative relationship between the two parents or fear of the other parent influence to the child. The tussle for right over the child may result in the child living in dilemma with limited option of choosing between the two parents. The negative effect of the movement may result to the child living out of fear and a sense of denial (Bauserman, 2002). The child may either blame the absent parent for neglect or blame the existing parent for denying him the right to the other parent. The solution to the concept of the child’s pursuit for the second parent is the residential custody in which the child is given the opportunity to interchange freely with parents and according to the court ruling the parent given custody over the child should allow the other parent the opportunity to visit and provide support to the child. The child should be provided with the minimal distance to cover while visiting the child. The role of the other parent denied custody to the child should be defined. Both parents are essential to the child during the child’s development and advancements. The gap that the child is left to cover after the divorce may be bridged by the presence of both parents to offer support to the child. The law also provides the parent with the opportunity to deny the influence of the second parent on the child by seeking a court order that would mean the parent is restrained at all cost from mingling with the child (Khunou, 2006). There is the scenario in which the parent may be involved in high conflicts or the one of the parent may be seen as posing danger to the child or be involved in domestic violence. The conditions give the court the ability to determine the safe environments for the child. The child is them assigned custody as a means of protecting his life or reducing the physical and psychological injury that the traumatic event had on their lives. In such situation the residential custody procedures may be reviewed and the child denied the opportunity to freely mingle with both parents (Kelly& Lamb, 2003). The rule is demoralizing to the child as he may seek to use the second parent to bridge a gap and reduce the psychological effect the divorce event may have cost child. The court has the final say on the nature and upkeep of the child. The child’s age plays part in ensuring proper custody is handed to them. Young children that require the mother’s presence are handed the opportunity till they attain the age of 18 years. The relocation is decided on grounds that the child may feel unsafe and that the child could be young to make his or her own decisions. Upon attaining the age of 18, the child is then given an opportunity to choose which parent to offer support (Braver wt al, 2003). Different countries has different interpretation of the procedure with evidence provide in court on violence would be used by the judge or legal term to decide when and how the parent given custody to the child would resume his or her parental role under the set rules(Engelbrecht& Renchen- Wentzel, 1999). The other parent may appeal the court decisions on ground that the assigned parent may lack the capacity to effectively raise the child. The court may limit in some cases the relocation of the child with the parent under which the responsibilities are given (Braver & O'Connell, 1998). The two are determine by the court, the first scenario is when the other parent files a petition that limits the parent given custody from relocating or in instances where the court finds the relocation as a means of harming the child or the court provides conditions where two have to be closely monitored by the children’s department or the police (Waits, 1998). There exists the positive aspect of the relocation in two scenarios. The first reason being based on best interest of the child, this emergence when the immediate environment is offering negative impact to the recovery process of the child. The change of environment may be meant to assist the child’s emotional being. The mockery and abuse present on the living environment of the child may be negative to his growth and development (Elrod, 2006). The second reason may be the job distance of which the parent has to cover. The shorten job distance would provide the child with ample time to spend with the parent. During the time spend together the child may take shorter time to recover from the trauma associated with the parents separation. The situation occurs when the favored child custodian was working far from their homes. The child requires special attention and parental presence during the traumatic period. The professional help only helps the child’s psychological well being and the parent would ensure the healing pattern is realized. The financial aspect of the child’ upkeep may prompt the parent to offer the child with alternative environment which would include a friendly neighborhood and on strained budget depending on the parent’s financial capability (Terry et al 1998). In conclusion the movement by parents after divorce should be limited and only encouraged when the action is necessary for both child’s upkeep and security welfare. The action has devastating effect and the court should be mandated in allocating custody based on the child’s welfare and should value the contribution of each parent contribution to the child’s upkeep. The parent’s decision to relocate only causes psychological effect to the child and his or her wellbeing. The cost involved in ensuring the child has a better life should be shared between the parents and the short distance between the parents should determine be encouraged. In scenarios where the movement is necessary, the court should limit the distance the parents relocate to as a means of giving each parent the opportunity to contribute t the child’s well being. Reference Amato, P.R, & Sobolewski, J. M. (2001). The effects of divorce and marital discord on adult children's psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 900-921. Bauserman, R. (2002). Child Adjustment in joint-custody versus sole-custody arrangements: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology,16 (1),91-102 Blaisure, k. & Geser, M.(1995). The Divorce Education Intervention Model. Family and Conciliation court review, 38(4), 501-513 Braver, L., Ellam, M.L., & Fabriciuos, W.V. (2003).Relocation of children after divorce and children’s best interest: new evidence and legal considerations. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 206 –219 retrieved from DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.2.206 Braver,S.L., & O'Connell, D. (1998). Divorced dads: Shattering the myths. New York: Tarcher Elrod, L. ,(2006). A move in the right direction? Best interests of the child emerging as the standard for relocation. J Fam Psychol, 17(2):193-205. Engelbrecht, R., & Renchen- Wentzel, A. (1999). Divorce: a south Africa guide. Johannesburg: Zebra Press. Fabricius, W., Braver, S., Diaz, P, & Velez, E. (2010). Custody and parenting time: links to family relationships and well-being after divorce. Lamb, M.E. (Eds). The Role of The Father In Child Development. (pp. 201-232) New York: John Wiley & sons, Inc Kelly, J. , &. Lamb, M. E. (2003). Developmental issues in relocation cases involving young children: when, whether, and how? Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 17(2), 193-205. Retrieved from Doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.2.193 Khunou, G.(2006). Fathers don’t stand a chance: experience of custody, access and maintenance. Richter, L., & Morrell, R. (eds), Baba: Men and Fatherhood in South Africa (pp. 256- 276).Johannesburg: HSRC press. Terry, E., Proctor, K., & Womack, J. (1998).Relocation: Moving Forward, or Moving Backward? Vol. 15, retrieved from Waits,K.(1998). Battered women and their children: lessons from one woman's story. Houston: Domestic Violence and the Health Care System Read More