Reidar Hjermann, Norway’s ombudsman for children, is now pushing one of vindictive divorced or separated mothers’ greatest hits–that shared parenting is bad for kids because it’s “inconvenient.” According to this recent Norwegian newspaper article:
“‘Children need individually tailored solutions,’ ombudsman Reidar Hjermann told newspaper Aftenposten on Wednesday. He thinks that splitting their time between their parents’ new homes should be the exception, not the rule.
“When parents split up, Hjermann acknowledges that they have to split up everything from their shared home to the cars, TV and stereo. Their children, however, shouldn’t be part of the math.
“‘You can’t just share children in accordance with what’s right for the parents,’ he said. Spending one week living with their mother and one week with their father is too stressful for many, he claims.”
I agree that such arrangements are inconvenient for children, but losing your father or turning dad into a few days a month “visitor” is not just inconvenient–it’s very harmful. Hjermann puts it in gender neutral terms but fortunately Labour Party politician Karita Bekkemellem (pictured), Norway’s former government minister in charge of family issues, explained what the Hjermann plan really means:
“‘It’s most unfortunate that in 2008, the children’s ombudsman doesn’t equate the positions of mother and father,’ she told Aftenposten. She claims that too many fathers feel short-changed, when their wives are all too often granted custody of the children.
“Without shared living arrangements, ‘only one of the parents gets to have close contact with the children in everyday life,’ Bekkemellem said. ‘All our experience shows that it will continue to be the fathers who are discriminated against.’”
The “inconvenient” and “individually tailored solutions” arguments are frequently put forward by American feminists, including the National Organization for Women, in opposition to shared parenting. Hjermann even trots out one of the feminists’ favorite straw men–that some divorced parents want their children to attend two different schools, in order to live part-time with the mother and part-time with the father. I agree that such a suggestion is ludicrous, but I very much doubt that people suggest it.
To learn more about the arguments in favor of shared parenting, including what adult children of divorce have to say on the matter, see my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan’s Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). One quick excerpt:
“When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents’ divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that ‘living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.’ His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003.”
Norway’s ombudsman for children doesn’t think children should have to commute between their divorced parents’ homes. His opinion puts him at odds with some top politicians.
Afenposten, 1/2/08
“Children need individually tailored solutions,” ombudsman Reidar Hjermann told newspaper Aftenposten on Wednesday. He thinks that splitting their time between their parents’ new homes should be the exception, not the rule.
When parents split up, Hjermann acknowledges that they have to split up everything from their shared home to the cars, TV and stereo. Their children, however, shouldn’t be part of the math.
“You can’t just share children in accordance with what’s right for the parents,” he said. Spending one week living with their mother and one week with their father is too stressful for many, he claims.
Hjermann told Aftenposten that he’s had to deal with some parents who even want their children to attend two different schools, in order to live part-time with the mother and part-time with the father. He advises strongly against that. He concedes that some children manage to move back and forth between their parents, but he thinks that only works well when the parents live close to one another and cooperate well.
Hjermann’s recommendation against commuting children “disappoints” top Labour Party politician Karita Bekkemellem, who until recently was the government minister in charge of family issues.
“It’s most unfortunate that in 2008, the children’s ombudsman doesn’t equate the positions of mother and father,” she told Aftenposten. She claims that too many fathers feel short-changed, when their wives are all too often granted custody of the children.
Without shared living arrangements, “only one of the parents gets to have close contact with the children in everyday life,” Bekkemellem said. “All our experience shows that it will continue to be the fathers who are discriminated against.”
6 responses so far ↓
1 AndyPanda // Jan 21, 2008 at 10:27 am
It is not the minister who made this stupid statement.
She (Osmundsen) stated November 23rd 2007 that women are more often violent towards children and that their violence is more dangerous than fathers violence.
It is the Children Ombudsman who made this stupid statement. He is a man. It would be fair for everyone to use a title referring to the correct man, and a title that correspond to who actually made the statement.
In Norway we are working to get him fired after this…
2 Merck // Jan 23, 2008 at 10:51 am
I think what’s overlooked when talking about equal custody of children after divorce is that when it’s fully implemented, it will greatly reduce the number of divorces to begin with, and therefore, the argument over children living between two households becomes largely a moot point.
Equal custody of children after a divorce is not just a good idea that would be nice if it were enforced … in the United States it’s the law and must be enforced.
Kevin Merck
3 wanito // Feb 6, 2008 at 11:31 am
Hello again. It’s been a while since I have posted on this site, but have been extremely busy in the fight against this corrupt family law system. I would like to enlist all of your help in this fight against the violation of our constitutional and civil rights. And, we can begin by questioning any and all non-adherence to the constitution. Here is a mass email that I recently sent out. Due to the very “vigorous” responses I have gotten, it seems to have struck a raw nerve. Please copy and paste and forward onto as many as possible. It is also posted on my website http://www.wheredmydaddygo.com
John Alvarez
Albuquerque, NM
4 wanito // Feb 6, 2008 at 11:33 am
New information 02/05/2008 (John Alvarez Considering Federal Lawsuit to block Hillary Rodham Clinton from Presidency)
I have been studying the US constitution very carefully concerning the upcoming Presidential elections, and have come to a determination regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Presidency - there is no Constitutional allowance for a female President. Under Article ll of the Constitution, any and every reference to the President is made in the very gender-specific terms of “he” or “his.” The original writers of the Constitution were very articulate, well-educated, men. Most certainly if they had wished to, they could have included the wording “he/she” in their description of the person who was to hold the office of President. Or, more clearly, if they had desired to do so, could have included the gender-neutral wording “person” in their description of the entity who was to hold the office of President, as they so clearly did when describing offices held under the legislative or judicial branches of government.
There is actually a recent federal lawsuit concerning the 2nd amendment and Washington D. C.’s ban on handguns, which was litigated all the way to the US Supreme court. The basis of the D.C. ban rested on the wording of the 2nd amendment. In the first part of the second amendment it states the right of “a well regulated militia” to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” In the second part of the 2nd amendment it states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The lawsuit attempted to dispute the position of the D.C. officials which was that only a “well regulated militia” had the right to bear arms, and at the same time clarify that also “the people” of the US had the right to bear arms, seeing as how the wording of the second amendment included both entities.
In the past, there have been amendments added to the Constitution to allow certain segments of society specific rights. Such as the 15th amendment which allowed former slaves to vote. Or, the 19th amendment, which specifically addressed the issue of allowing women the right to vote. It is very clear to me that the wording under Article ll of the US Constitution is very specific as to what the gender of the President must be according to the founders of this country. If you think about it, it does not make sense that a specific amendment to the Constitution had to be passed to allow women to be involved in government in the aspect of voting, but no specific amendment must now be passed to allow a woman to become the pinnacle of US government (the President) despite the very clear wording of Article ll? So I say, should there be any legal question or dispute of said wording, it should be decided by a court decision or a new amendment to the Constitution, or by simply rewording Article ll, and not by a select few who wish to interpret the Constitution subjectively to achieve their own ends.
If the issue of wording does not seem important to you, consider the wording on literature available from family law and domestic violence agencies here in New Mexico. When describing the domestic violence abuser, the wording very specifically states “he” or “his” or “him.” But, when describing the domestic violence victim, the wording is always specifically “she” or “her.” It is very clear that the writers of the domestic violence literature, again most likely very articulate and educated, very specifically used the wording that they did to delegate the position of DV abuser to the man, and the position of DV victim to the woman. Why would we believe that the great and most esteemed founders of our country would have done any less.
I personally have no issue with a female President. As long as it was Constitutionally sanctioned, and she was duly voted into office, and would carry out her Presidential duties capably and competently. But, what I do have an issue with, is certain segments of the population or government usurping the precepts and authority of the Constitution on personal whim, or for their own ends. This has taken place over and over again in my fight to see my daughter and be a father to her. Family Court Judges (such as Albuquerque Judge Angela Jewell) have in open court denied me my 7th amendment right to a jury, my 8th amendment right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and my 13th amendment right to protection against involuntary servitude, and have gotten away with it unpunished.
I am sick and tired of the laws of the US, and the rights of it’s people (all people) being subjectively applicable depending on circumstances that a privileged segment of the government, or the population decide. The violation, and the subjective interpretation of the articles and amendments of the Constitution by select members of government and society must end. I am considering a federal lawsuit to block Hillary Rodham Clinton from becoming President if and until the male specific wording of Article ll is clarified by court decision, Constitutional amendment, or simply changed to include either an appropriate feminine or gender neutral pronoun.
I have a Constitutionally valid legal argument. If you are an attorney experienced in federal lawsuits and you are interested in taking my case please contact me at j5alvr@aol.com
Please forward this email onto as many as possible.
John Alvarez
Writer/Producer/Host
“Where’d My Daddy Go?”
Website: http://www.wheredmydaddygo.com
Email: j5alvr@aol.com
5 Merck // Feb 10, 2008 at 11:50 am
John:
That’s an interesting question. I never thought of it that way. I hope you keep us posted on the progress.
I wanted to suggest that you post it in the new discussion forum available on this website.
Kevin Merck
6 Merck // Feb 10, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I opened the discussion on the topic John, just in case you didn’t make it back for a while.
Kevin Merck
You must log in to post a comment.