Commentary on Epstein and Madsen's "Joint Custody with a Vengeance: The Emergence of Parallel Parenting Orders"

In the article by Epstein and Madsen (2004), the authors raise a thoughtful yet provocative debate regarding joint custody and the courts' increasing trend towards ordering parallel parenting in family law disputes. They argue, "that while perhaps well intentioned, parallel parenting is deeply flawed, reflecting less a concern with the best interests of children than judicial resistance to the imperative to "choose" between parents3. Epstein and Madsen (2004) would argue that this seeming shift in philosophy is premised on wanting to preserve the child-parent relationship at any cost and to promote "maximum contact", even when this may not be in the best interest of the child. Epstein and Madsen (2004) conceptualize their argument around case law decision-making, assessor's expert reports that are increasingly recommending joint custody and parallel parenting plans, and the indeterminacy of the best interests test. In doing so, Epstein and Madsen (2004) do not fully consider the overwhelming body of scholarly research on the effects of parental conflict on children (Amato & Sobolewski, 2001 ; Cummings & Davies, 1994; Doolittle & Deutsch, 1999; Emery, Fincham, & Cummings, 1992; Grych & Fincham, 1990, 2001; Kelly, 2000; Kelly & Emery, 2003), as well as developmental theory and risk/resiliency theory (Kelly & Emery, 2003; Mayes & Molitor-Siegl, 1999). In addition, the authors do not explore the assessors' and the courts' unexamined personal and value laden beliefs surrounding the principle of continuity of care and the primacy of mothers and/or fathers (Ahrons & Tanner, 2003; Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998; Kelly & Johnston, 2005; Mayes & Molitor-Siegl, 1999; Warshak, 2000; 2003).

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, the authors will define the terms parenting plans and parallel parenting and conceptualize these in developmental and psychological terms. By doing so, the authors situate parenting plans and parallel parenting within the social science literature and developmental theory thereby making an important, albeit often elusive distinction between joint custody and parallel parenting. second, the authors argue that while parenting plans and parallel parenting are no panacea to the struggles and turmoil that children and families endure pre and post separation and/or divorce, they protect children from parental conflict and facilitate the children's relationships with each parent irrespective of the quantity of time spent together. Equally important...