Two prostitutes claim a baby as their own. One of them is lying. King Solomon is the judge and he declares, "Cut the living child in two." The one woman cries out, "No! Give the baby to her. Don't kill him!" The second woman replies, "Neither of us will have him. Cut him in two." Solomon realizes the mother would not want to see harm come upon her baby, so he rightfully determines who the mother is and everyone marvels at Solomon's wisdom.
I always thought it was kind of a silly story. Would people really react this way? I think I can't fully understand it because I am not from that time period. But in talking with someone the other day, it made me think of an issue I've addressed previously.
Could this story apply to our current situation of child custody? Two separated parents want sole custody of their child. Instead, the child is shuffled back and forth between two homes. One week he is at his Dad's house. The next week he is at his Mom's. I wish we had a better system of determining who gets sole custody. This is no way to raise a child. So conflicting, so damaging, so irresponsible. It is as if the child is cut in two.
I wrestle with the solution. I'm not educated enough on this issue, but if we were to take the Solomon story as parallel, maybe the solution is there. Let's say Mom is the better parent and should raise the child, but Dad had some good lawyers and despite being a crappy parent he has 50% custody. If the obvious solution can't be determined (let the best parent raise the child) then what solutions are left. Cut the child in two (raise him in separate homes each week) or give the child to the worse parent (the toughest pill to swallow).
Of the two evils, separate homes or bad parent raising, which is the lesser? I don't know. I think the good parent isn't willing to give up their custody for a number of reasons (that are completely valid): they want their child to have some positive influence to counter the bad, they deserve to have the child and they'll take what they can get, if they give up the child there's a chance they'll never have a strong relationship with them, etc.
I could go on, but I'll stop there for now. What do you think?
4 comments:
I think the idea of giving one parent weekends and holidays actually works pretty well, although it does leave the weekday parent without much "fun time." I think it's important for both parents to be involved if they want to and if distance is not a problem, mostly because it seems good for kids to feel loved and appreciated by their parents.
I think this is a very interesting subject. I've never really thought much about what the bouncing back and forth does to a child. To me, it just seemed neat that both parents were in the picture. I will continue to think on this.
ashley, i think you're right. if both parents are loving and appreciating their kids that works.
but what if one parent is terrible despite somehow managing to gain joint custody? or they simply neglect their kid and don't show them appreciation?
I guess there are situations where being with that worse parent would be a danger to the kid if he or she were too young to grab food from the fridge or if other basic needs were not being met.
Emotionally, I think most kids really love their parents until they learn otherwise, either by hearsay or by personal experience of their terrible parent. For that kid, part of growing up might be figuring out what his or her parents are like by spending time with both of them.
Personally, I have only just gotten a chance to get to know my dad over the last year or so... it feels like an awkward and unnatural thing to do as an adult, but I think it is something that people like to do - figure out what their parents are really like.
Any other opinions or ideas on a better way of doing things? It's an interesting topic, for sure.
Post a Comment