What's Wrong With Co Parenting?

 Nothing, when it is used correctly! The wonderful thing about co parenting is that it most closely replicates a healthy family dynamic when the parents have divorced. Both parents are still involved closely with the child and have a unified front. They just aren't married anymore. This is why studies have shown that children whose parents are divorced but have joint custody have better outcomes in general. The large meta analytic review conducted by Dr. Robert Bauserman in 2002 found that there was less conflict between parents and less emotional and behavioral problems for children whose parents were coparenting (American Psychological Association, 2002). This study is probably what has informed the movement towards court ordered joint custody and coparenting in custody decisions for the last twenty plus years. 

There are a lot of parents who are doing a great job with coparenting and social media has made it easier for them to share their stories about how they have made co parenting work. These parents are doing a great thing for their children and they should be applauded. But with divorces that have serious underlying dysfunction for one or both parents, one parent (or sometimes both) frequently can't manage their own life, let alone give a child adequate care on a daily long term basis or cooperate extensively with another adult on a long term basis. Coparenting becomes a problem when it's not in the children's best interests to have joint custody and coparenting isn't workable, but the court orders it anyway. Courts and family law professionals will likely say that the "coparenting for all" is backed up by the best research and evidence. But it's not. Dr. Bauserman, the author of the landmark study on coparenting that started the coparenting movement, acknowledged this himself in his study:

 

It is important to recognize that the results do not support joint custody in all situations.     When one parent is abusive or neglectful or has a serious mental or physical health problem, sole-custody with the other parent would clearly be preferable, said Bauserman. The judges, lawyers, social workers, psychologists and other professionals involved in divorce counseling and litigation should be aware of these findings to make informed decisions of what environment is best for a child in a custody situation (American Psychological Association, 2002). 

What courts are doing when they force co parenting isn't about the children. It's about catering to abusive adults. Court ordered co parenting quickly becomes about meeting the wants of the parent who complains the most and not the children. Take another look at this passage from a court ordered co parenting class book:

"When the desire to coparent is lopsided, the burden is even greater on the one parent who will adapt and who is able to to make helpful concessions. In this case, it is paramount that the healthier parent accept and understand the goals and methods of coparenting, rather than give up or succumb to the other parent's argumentative ways. Until things change for the better, he or she alone must make flexible decisions when faced repeatedly with the other parent's rigidity." 

The parent who isn't behaving in a cooperative manner becomes the center of the relationship. The co parenting class says that the other parent needs to start being more accommodating to the parent who refuses to cooperate. These classes are giving lip service to the children's needs, but when push comes to shove, it's about the parent who complains the most. Nor is this a "businesslike relationship" as co parenting classes and books so often say co parenting is. In a businesslike relationship if one partner or employee isn't doing their job, they can be fired. Co parenting classes say that "firing" your "business partner" in parenting is impossible because "parents are forever". If the other parent doesn't behave in a businesslike manner, you can't stop working with them, instead you have to cater to their whims. 

You can't order someone to be empathetic or cooperative. The logical fallacy here is that courts can order coparenting classes and that if parents take a coparenting class, they will become empathetic and cooperative, despite serious mental instability and abuse. This approach fails to acknowledge the fundamental truth that parents have to choose empathy and choose cooperation in order for coparenting work. Empathy and cooperation can't be forced, ordered or guaranteed by any outside party. The individuals have to choose for themselves, which is why the best candidates for coparenting are probably couples who come up with a parenting plan without the court's involvement. 

Another probably with the "coparenting for all" approach is that divorces are highly variable and a "one-size-fits-all" custody arrangement is unrealistic. McCullough's (2024) study of five college students who had been in joint custody situations as children revealed that even in a very small sample set, the conditions and circumstances of their parents' divorces and families and living situations was highly variable. Some of them described having to move to smaller living spaces or one parent having to move in with grandparents for financial reasons. One participant had to move to two new houses from where he grew up. One participant described her father's alcoholism being a significantly stressful factor in her time at her father's house. One reported that her parents hid their conflict from her very well, while others said that they were used as messengers by their parents or dealt with their parents talking bad about each other. One participant described her mother frequently had boyfriends spend the night while she was there, while another met her father's girlfriend over Thanksgiving. Some participants enjoyed spending time with their step siblings. One participant described her stepmother as being a "buffer" in her relationship with her alcoholic father, but also causing increased complications in her parents' already contentious relationship. Another described having a hard time adjusting to having a new stepmother, but becoming close as time went on. One said that she felt the joint custody situation made her anxiety worse. In only five cases, the  circumstances were vastly different, but all were in joint custody situations. In situations such as with an alcoholic parent or one having numerous men over to spend the night while the child is there, it is questionable whether joint custody is advisable. This highlights the conflict between the reality that divorces can be very complex with many different factors, while courts typically use one custody arrangement for almost all cases.

The study also noted that while college students who had never been through a parental divorce stated that would want to have a joint custody arrangement if there parents did get divorced, most of the participants who had been through a parental divorce said that they did not like having a joint custody arrangement. Most of the participants who had been in a joint custody arrangement as a child reported that joint custody exposed them to more parental conflict, consistent with previous findings in other studies. 

Goodman-Williams (2017) summarizes the research that indicates that mandated coparenting is not an effective tool for resolving conflicts in divorce:

• The research often used to support joint custody presumptions do not distinguish between arrangements that are voluntarily reached by the parents and those that are imposed by a court (Allen, 2014; Pruett & Barker, 2009). No research has yet suggested that joint custody leads to positive outcomes when it has been mandated, and some research has found negative outcomes accrue disproportionately among families faced with mandated joint custody (Irving et al., 1984).
• Multiple studies have found pre-divorce differences between parents who chose joint custody as opposed to sole custody arrangements (Bauserman 2002; Ehrenberg, Hunter, & Elterman 1996), suggesting that joint custody may not be a good fit for all families.
• While the potential benefits from cooperative parenting may be stronger in joint custody situations, the potential negative effects of conflict have been found to be stronger, as well (Johnston et al., 1989; Pruett & Barker, 2009; Tschann et al., 1989). In their review of joint custody literature, Pruett and Barker (2009, p.445) reflect that “the benefits of joint custody may be lost and the process of custody decision making may become even more costly when it is imposed on parents who are not ready to undertake it.”
• Many presumption of joint custody proponents argue that paternal parenting time has been found to be positively related to father-child relationship quality (e.g. DeGarmo, Patras, & Eap, 2008; Dunn, Cheg, O’Connor & Bridges, 2004), however those study are correlative not causative. The way the studies were carried out, it is unclear whether fathers with high quality relationship to their children sought out more parenting time or whether more parenting time led to higher quality relationships between fathers and their children.
• Presumptive joint custody may place a child with a parent who lacks experience with his/her children or who may not desire the level of involvement joint custody would impose (Pruett & Barker, 2009; Schepard, 2004).
• Child custody decisions should be made on the basis of what is best for the child, not what is best for the parent. In re Marriage of Hansen (2007), the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that “Physical care issues are not to be resolved based upon perceived fairness to the spouses, but primarily upon what is best for the child” (par. 62).
• Joint physical custody requires a level of economic security and employment flexibility that not all parents enjoy (Juby, Le Bourdais, & Marcil-Grattan, 2005; Pruett & Barker, 2009), and the presumption of joint custody could place an especially heavy burden on low-income or economically marginalized parents.
• Presumed joint physical custody arrangements reduce or eliminate children’s abilities to inform the court about their preferences or needs (Pruett & Barker, 2009; Schepard, 2004).
• Researchers Pruett and Barker (2009) reviewed joint custody literature and concluded, “There are too many complexities in child development, family transitions, work schedules, and life courses to impose a social policy that assumes one pattern for all families over time” (p. 443).

Don't Apps Help?

There has been a proliferation of co parenting apps like Talking Parents and Our Family Wizard. The implicit promise of these apps is that the right app will make co parenting happen and overcome the problems of parents who don't get along. This is very idealistic and very unrealistic. There is no app or other technological apparatus that can overcome severe mental instability. Apps like Talking Parents might even create a whole new problem with some individuals because the app states that messages on Talking Parents are admissible in court. 

Delusions, coparenting apps and potential coparenting problems

For some individuals, the statement that the messages are admissible in court, could mean to them that any message they send becomes the "real" version of events or at least will be regarded as real in court-- despite what actually happened. For some unstable people, "admissible in court" might mean "if I say it on the app, the court will believe it". Hallucinations and delusions are common in borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder, which tend to be associated with relationship instability, so again, it's fairly likely that parents with hallucinations and delusions will show up in custody proceedings at court. One study found a delusion prevalence of 26% among individuals with borderline personality disorder. Most individuals with delusions had a strong conviction of their delusions (Niemantsverdriet, et al. 2022). People who have persecutory delusions often are aggressive, irritable, anxious and assaultive, but also litigious (Joseph and Siddiqi, 2023). We should take note of the litigious aspect of persecutory delusions for two reasons. First, delusional people who are bringing cases to court have enough capacity to file legal cases. I suspect that most judges would picture a parent who is delusional rambling about aliens telling them to go talk to the president and looking disheveled. In reality, the delusional parent is pretty likely to make filing after filing and show up in court, probably with a fairly normal appearance. Judges are probably seeing delusional parents, but they aren't solving the problem of these combative parents because the judges assume that the combative parent can't be delusional because they are capable of filing motions with the court and showing up to hearings and they aren't babbling about bizarre things. Just because the parent doesn't have bizarre delusions doesn't mean he or she is mentally stable and in touch with reality. Many delusions are not bizarre, and bizarre delusions are only one type of delusion. 

Second, the reason that some parents seem to go back to court over and over and over again might be because they are delusional. Some parents with certain mental health disorders who are experiencing persecutory delusions might believe against all evidence and reality that they or the children are being persecuted by the other parent, and so they might file motions with the court in accordance with their delusions and not reality. This seems like something that courts-- if they are actually interested in the wellbeing of children-- would want to check for and take into account in custody decisions.

Once again, delusions are not a coparenting problem, they are a mental health problem. But it could be possible that the admissibility of statements in these apps combined with the potential for delusions-- particularly persecutory delusions-- can create a volatile combination that adds fuel to the fire of hostile custody situations rather than dousing it. Worse still, when courts fail to investigate whether a parent is mentally stable and whether a parent's account of their care of the children or their spouse's care of the children is accurate, the court may operate as if the delusions are true, further affirming the unstable parent's unbalanced worldview instead of pulling them out of that delusion and creating more stability for the children. 

If a parent is delusional, he or she is not going to have a firm enough grasp on reality to cooperate with the other parent. If one parent is having persecutory or paranoid delusions and is convinced, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the other parent is "out to get" him or her, coparenting will be impossible because of the parent's combative nature and lack of a grip on reality. Also, note the problems posed by parents who might use the children in factitious disorder by proxy-- which is more common with certain personality disorders (Mayo Clinic, 2024). If a parent is set on convincing others that the child is being somehow harmed, mistreated or ill despite the child being healthy and safe (or the parent is inducing actions to make the child sick in some way), coparenting will likewise be impossible because the parent doesn't have a firm grasp on reality or the ability to consider the child's needs. The problems of mandating coparenting in these circumstances can't be overstated. 

Another problem is that parents are required by courts to respond to each other's messages. So when an unstable parent starts using the app to harass the other parent, the other parent is obligated to respond, which can stoke the harassing parent's controlling and abusive tendencies because they are now getting a reaction. Manipulative parents will use messages about the children to spark a fight and when the other parent responds to a harassing and abusive message  (as they are court ordered to), the the harassing parent may use the messages in court as "proof" that they are a victim of the other parent's "persecution". Again, manipulative, harassing and abusive behavior and delusions are not going to be solved by requiring the parents to communicate over an app. (However, they can likely be solved by limiting the abusive parent's contact with the stable parent and giving the stable parent decision making authority. But again, courts will choose a volatile situation over a safer one in order to preserve a viewpoint that is not backed up by research or evidence.)

Apps are good for organization and scheduling, but they can create significant problems when courts force their use in custody situations with mentally unstable and abusive parents. These apps can become a venue for controlling and aggressive parents to harass the other parent. So while the dream here is that technology is going to cause a revolution that will prevent conflict between divorcing couples, it can't because the problem with the dissolution of abusive relationships isn't organization and communication. It's that one or both parents is abusive and controlling. There is no app for that.

References

American Psychological Association (2002). 

Children Likely to Be Better Adjusted in Joint vs Sole Custody Arrangements in Most Cases, According to Review of Research. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2002/03/custody

Goodman-Williams, R. (2017) Know the facts: Research on joint custody. MCEDSV. https://mcedsv.org/2017/09/presumptive-joint-custody-research-findings/

Joseph, S.M. and Siddiqi, W. (2023). Delusional disorder. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539855/

Mayo Clinic (2024). Factitious disorder. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/factitious-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20356028#:~:text=Factitious%20disorder%20imposed%20on%20another,another%20person%20to%20deceive%20others.

McCullough, S. (2024). Can Time Really Heal: The Long-term Impacts of Joint Custody Arrangements. [Senior Honor's thesis Liberty University] Liberty University. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2481&context=honors

Niemantsverdriet, M.B.A., van Veen, R.J.B., Slotema, C.W.,Franken, I.H.A., Verbraak, M.J.P.M., Deen, M., and van der Gaag, M. (2022). Characteristics and stability of hallucinations and delusions in patients with borderline personality disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2021.152290 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X21000687