Several months ago, I was contacted by the Director of Development, Alumni Scholarships for the UCLA Alumni Association. She sought my advice regarding what could be done to re-bond UCLA Alumni with the University. I explained to her that she was seeking advice on the wrong issue because you cannot re-bond what had never before been bonded. I told her that things can be done to establish a bond in the first place, even at this late stage. However, that is far different and more difficult than re-bonding something, where a bond had existed at some point in the past. In other words, if you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer.
How does this relate to family law, you ask? This bonding issue applies equally to relationships of all types, whether between a parent/child, employer/employee, or university/alumni.
I am deeply concerned about the fact that Equal Parenting is gaining such momentum because it is the wrong answer to the wrong question. Equal Parenting means that both parents have equal parenting time with their children. This incorrectly assumes that quantity somehow equals quality. The elephant in the room that nobody cares to address relates to the parent/child bond or lack thereof. It should also be noted that it is much more difficult for parental alienation to occur if a strong parent/child bond had been formed in the first place.
I have known many people who were more bonded with a grandparent than they were with either parent. Interestingly enough, this was true even though such people grew up in intact households. In other words, both parents had equal access to their children. Furthermore, the fact that the grandparent did not live in close proximity and therefore did not see their grandchild as frequently as did their parents did not change this reality. While this may be a bitter pill for some parents to swallow, the truth is not always pretty.
A parent/child bond is initially formed when the parent cares for a newborn infant and young child. It is established by the parent feeding the child, changing the child’s diapers, putting the child to bed, and otherwise caring for the child. If parents were to separate prior to the child’s birth or shortly thereafter, is it appropriate for the mother and/or the legal system to deny the father the right to form such a bond with his child? No.
Does this mean that there should be 50/50 parenting? No. Again, how do you re-establish a bond that may never have existed? Do you do so by forcing the child to spend 50% of the time with a parent with whom the child is not bonded or not well-bonded? Does this have anything to do with fitness as a parent? No. Can a bond that was never established be formed? Yes. Does it occur by forcing the child to spend time with that parent? No. Does percentage timeshare equate to a strong parent/child bond? No. Can timeshare be increased as the bond is strengthened between the parent and child? Yes. If forced prematurely, however, the intended result will backfire.
People have the right to marry, although in many jurisdictions such a right is based upon the sexual orientation of those people. People have the right to procreate. People have the right to end their marriages or non-marital relationships. However, parental “rights” are a bit different. After all, parental “rights” involve minor children and dependent adult children. Therefore, when people refer to parental “rights,” they are referring to their “rights” with regard to human beings who lack legal capacity either because of their age or diminished mental capacity. Parents argue that they are somehow entitled to equal protection under the law as it pertains to their “rights” as parents. What about the children? What about their rights? The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no state shall … deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Isn’t a child a person? According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary, 11th Edition, a person is a “human.” Isn’t a child a human? Yes. Don’t children have rights? Yes. Among other things, Equal Parenting completely ignores the rights of children; rather it focuses on parental “rights.”
Equal Parenting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What makes anyone believe that Equal Parenting is the optimal timeshare arrangement? Remember, for every action, there is a reaction – cause and effect. Instead of focusing on Equal Parenting, we should be focusing on what can be done to improve the bond between parents and their children.
Categories: 
I believe a child has no rights until they turn 18 by statute because they are under control of their parents, a guardian, an institution or the state. Common law says a child is one who has NOT attained the age of 14 years.
If based on your position about the definition of children being a “person”, then the SCOTUS case of In re Gault, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1435 says that the Court must give children the right of (1) notice of hearing and right to be heard (including mandatory in camera hearings), (2) counsel of choice at all proceedings, (3) cross-examination and confrontation, (4) submission of evidence and putting on witnesses, (5) transcripts of all proceedings (for free if child is indigent–most are because they’re too young to work), (6)automatic appeal, (7) and an impartial tribunal.
Judges cannot use discretion to avoid these 7 issues. In order for them to use discretion, they have to use the facts and the law first. The law is above.
What rights do children have who are born to two married parents? Do they get to choose who they spend time with and how much time they get to spend with their parents? Absolutely not. What do children know about what they need and what’s best for them? Absolutely nothing. Do parents consider a childen’s preferences? Yes. Good parents always consider their childen’s preferences at certain ages with some matters and not with other matters. That is parents’ prerogative. Unless there is proven abuse, neglect, etc. children’s rights stop there. When they become an adult and can pay their bills and hold down a job, then they can have rights above and beyond having their basic needs met. God gave children two parents by design. There is a need children have for two parents, whether the state or a child sees God’s reasoning for that. No one has the right to separate what God put together. Both parents are necessary for children’s well being. It is in the best interest of every child to have their parents in their lives unless there is abuse or neglect.
Everyone knows that the only interest most lawyers or legal persons have in child custody divorces is MONEY, professionals lining their pockets. All the rhetoric about “What’s in the best interest of the children”, is a bunch of bull sh***. The greater conflict and the greater divisions that lawyers can inflame their clients to rail against their soon to be “ex”, the greater their PAYCHECK. Children are just the pawn and custody battle is their game, the means to their end. And if you believe otherwise you deceive yourselves.
But whoso shall harm one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:5-7