Custodia comune: un bimbo tra due sedie

By Tzafi Saar (Haaretz)

When T. told her husband she wanted a divorce, his immediate reaction was: I'm suing for custody of the children. Immediately afterward, he admitted he had no intention of raising their three children. "I'm suing to make you suffer," he told her. The couple became entrenched in a slew of meetings with lawyers and social workers, underwent a "parental capability" test and engaged in lengthy discussions and arguments. "I can keep this going for five years," the husband told T. "Do you want this to be over in a year? Then pay up." T. paid him NIS 100,000 to withdraw his custody claims, which he neither sought nor intended to enforce anyway. "It's not as if I had money," she said. "We sold our joint apartment, and he received another NIS 100,000 from my half."
Advertisement
The blackmail didn't end there. When the couple approached the rabbinical court with the signed divorce papers, the husband suddenly demanded a reconciliation. In the next round of talks, when he repeated this claim, T. broke down and paid him another several thousand shekels - simply to get the divorce she so longed for. Surprisingly, T., who lives in Herzliya, does not find her story appalling. "When it's only about money, it's not that bad," she says. In the end, the children's father received minimal visitation rights, just as he wished: twice a week and every other Saturday. Not all men who get divorced act like T.'s ex-husband. There are fathers who wish to remain deeply involved in their children's lives after the divorce. Men's attitudes toward parenthood have changed significantly over the past several decades, and so have social perceptions regarding the father's role in a child's life. And yet, T.'s case is not all that uncommon: Family lawyers say that many men take advantage of this social change, especially when the woman initiates the divorce, and he use it as a weapon to hurt her, both emotionally and financially. And it works. According to the lawyers, women come into their office completely petrified: "He'll take away my children." This is usually an unfounded fear. Courts generally give custody of the children to the mother, except in rare cases when her lack of ability to function can severely harm them. But the threat does the job - a woman who fears losing custody over her children would prefer to fork over some of her wealth. Attorney Sharon Freeling, an expert in family law, states that "in many cases when this threat arises, it doesn't reach an actual lawsuit. It's part of the tempestuous feud between the couple." Freeling tells of a woman from northern Israel whom she represented in the past. "Both partners are professionals. The mother had a flexible schedule and was home more in the afternoons. The father worked around the clock. In the beginning of the divorce process, which the woman initiated, he told her: 'You'll be sorry. I'll make sure to take your child away from you.' We didn't give up on the possession. We exposed the father's motives before the court: He was questioned about how he planned to reorganize his life to raise the child, in terms of work schedule and such. He didn't have the answers. It was obvious that the child would be in the hands of a nanny or his grandparents, and wouldn't have sufficient parental presence." The change in the way fatherhood is perceived has led to the joint custody arrangement. Most divorce settlements places custody in the hands of one of the parents, usually the mother, and visitation rights are determined for the other parent. However, in the case of joint custody, there is an equal division of the day-to-day care of the children. They spend an equal amount of time with each parent, and have two homes. In Israel, joint custody agreements are uncommon. This agreement flourished in the rest of the world for years, as awareness grew of the pivotal role fathers play in children's lives. However, the trend is now on the decline in most Western nations. Studies have shown that joint custody trends, in many cases, put the child at a disadvantage; the child lacked a permanent home and had to wander back and forth between two houses. A study conducted on 100 children of divorced parents in San Francisco found that children in joint custody tended to be more depressed, introverted, uncommunicative and aggressive. In any case, joint custody is only possible if both parents genuinely want it and communicate well with one another. They must also commit to living near one another for years to allow the child to get to school from each of the two homes and maintain a normal social life. In many cases, Israeli courts agreed to this kind of arrangement if both parents requested it in their divorce settlement. Attorney Haya Singer, an expert in inheritance and family law, claims there are cases, in which the court refers the family to social workers to determine if the arrangement is compatible with the child's well-being, the parents understand its implications, and whether or not one of the sides has been coerced into accepting the joint custody terms. Those in favor of joint custody use the principle of equality and feminist terminology to advocate their case. Why is the mother the preferred guardian, they wonder. The father is no less important. They claim that, in the past, when men worked and women took care of the children, there was logic in the arrangement of the mother guardian, but now women work and there's no reason why they should have an advantage in the parenting domain. This is discrimination against men. Women's groups have expressed their stance in the past about dismissing this law (which in the end remained intact): There is no equality in the real world; in the majority of cases, the primary caretaker in the marriage is the mother; men earn more money than women and can therefore hire better lawyers in the divorce process; divorce laws in Israel are biased and discriminate against women; lawyers say that many of the fathers who say they support the principle of equality during their divorce, didn't necessarily support it during the years they were married. Edith Honigman, a social worker and family therapist, says there is sometimes confusion between joint parenting, which she says is a wonderful thing, and joint custody, which is often incompatible with the parents' communication abilities. Attorney Yoav Tal, an expert in family law, says that since the father's significant involvement serves the well-being of the child, then possibly a change in the law is advisable: Pro-women legislation, he comments, also improved their situation in other fields. Sometimes the pursuit of custody or joint custody is genuine, but it is often merely a tool used to decrease alimonies. There is a wide range of settlements: There are joint custody arrangements in which alimonies are decreased by a little, and there are cases in which parents take on joint financial responsibility for the children's needs - without alimonies. In one divorce case, Judge Yael Willner of the Haifa District Court ruled that "a decrease in alimony rates bears the risk that joint custody will be considered more financially rewarding and will open up a new battlefront between the parents in the custody issue. In the heat of battle, the children's well-being will be forgotten." Is Israeli society even interested in a change on this issue? A survey carried out by the New Family Organization revealed a majority of Israelis, both men and women, think that there's nothing like a mother's love. Some 46.6 percent believe the mother should be the guardian (50.9 percent of the women and 41 percent of the men), and only 1.7 percent feel the father is the one suitable for the job (2.5 percent of the men and 1 percent of the women). Some 30.5 percent support dividing responsibilities equally between both parents. However, a father's involvement is necessary, even if there are cases in which recognition of such is put to bad use. "We definitely need to act to solidify the father's status in the life of a child following divorce," says Freeling. "But in the face of such studies which show that even in dual-career families, the mother is primarily the one bearing the burden of child-raising, it would be superficial to decide on joint custody after the divorce, when there was no basis for this in the marriage. The change should first take place in the existing family cell while married, and only then be implemented in the wake of divorce."