父母身份的重新定位和不可分割性

Q1 Social Sciences
P. Parkinson, J. Cashmore
{"title":"父母身份的重新定位和不可分割性","authors":"P. Parkinson, J. Cashmore","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2017.1411858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article is based upon the findings of a five-year prospective longitudinal study of relocation disputes in Australia, involving interviews with 80 parents and 33 children in 70 families. In the five years following the relocation dispute, much changed for some of these families. A few mothers left without their children; several mothers returned to the original location; some fathers followed. There were also changes in some custody arrangements. The mothers who moved were not surprisingly satisfied with the outcome; however, even mothers who were not allowed to move mostly showed greater improvements in stress levels and mental health than fathers over the five year period, even if the fathers successfully opposed the move. Several mothers adapted to staying if they could see the benefit to their children. All children who moved adapted to the new location and made new friends; however, those who had close relationships with their father found it very hard to be a long distance from him. Drawing upon these interviews, it is argued that decision making in relocation cases must be resolutely child-centered. It cannot be based upon adults’ rights. Children usually benefit from a continuing relationship with a nonresident parent who wants to be involved in their lives. In the adjudication of relocation disputes, careful attention is needed to how close and how developmentally important the child’s relationship is with their nonresident parent. Consideration must also be given to whether the nonresident parent can move to the preferred location of the primary caregiver.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relocation and the indissolubility of parenthood\",\"authors\":\"P. Parkinson, J. Cashmore\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15379418.2017.1411858\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article is based upon the findings of a five-year prospective longitudinal study of relocation disputes in Australia, involving interviews with 80 parents and 33 children in 70 families. In the five years following the relocation dispute, much changed for some of these families. A few mothers left without their children; several mothers returned to the original location; some fathers followed. There were also changes in some custody arrangements. The mothers who moved were not surprisingly satisfied with the outcome; however, even mothers who were not allowed to move mostly showed greater improvements in stress levels and mental health than fathers over the five year period, even if the fathers successfully opposed the move. Several mothers adapted to staying if they could see the benefit to their children. All children who moved adapted to the new location and made new friends; however, those who had close relationships with their father found it very hard to be a long distance from him. Drawing upon these interviews, it is argued that decision making in relocation cases must be resolutely child-centered. It cannot be based upon adults’ rights. Children usually benefit from a continuing relationship with a nonresident parent who wants to be involved in their lives. In the adjudication of relocation disputes, careful attention is needed to how close and how developmentally important the child’s relationship is with their nonresident parent. Consideration must also be given to whether the nonresident parent can move to the preferred location of the primary caregiver.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Child Custody\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Child Custody\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1411858\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Custody","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1411858","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文基于一项为期五年的澳大利亚搬迁纠纷前瞻性纵向研究的结果,涉及对70个家庭的80名父母和33名儿童的访谈。在搬迁纠纷之后的五年里,其中一些家庭发生了很大变化。一些母亲没有带着孩子离开;几个妈妈回到了原来的位置;一些父亲也跟着去了。一些监护安排也发生了变化。搬家的母亲们对结果并不意外地感到满意;然而,在5年的时间里,即使是那些不被允许搬家的母亲,在压力水平和心理健康方面也比父亲得到了更大的改善,即使父亲成功地反对了搬家。有几位母亲愿意留下来,如果她们看到这样做对孩子有好处的话。所有搬家的孩子都适应了新环境,结交了新朋友;然而,那些与父亲关系密切的人发现很难远离父亲。根据这些访谈,有人认为搬迁案件的决策必须坚决以儿童为中心。它不能以成年人的权利为基础。孩子们通常受益于与想要参与他们生活的非居民父母的持续关系。在安置纠纷的裁决中,需要仔细注意孩子与非居民父母的关系有多密切,在发展上有多重要。还必须考虑非居民父母是否可以搬到主要照顾者的首选地点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Relocation and the indissolubility of parenthood
ABSTRACT This article is based upon the findings of a five-year prospective longitudinal study of relocation disputes in Australia, involving interviews with 80 parents and 33 children in 70 families. In the five years following the relocation dispute, much changed for some of these families. A few mothers left without their children; several mothers returned to the original location; some fathers followed. There were also changes in some custody arrangements. The mothers who moved were not surprisingly satisfied with the outcome; however, even mothers who were not allowed to move mostly showed greater improvements in stress levels and mental health than fathers over the five year period, even if the fathers successfully opposed the move. Several mothers adapted to staying if they could see the benefit to their children. All children who moved adapted to the new location and made new friends; however, those who had close relationships with their father found it very hard to be a long distance from him. Drawing upon these interviews, it is argued that decision making in relocation cases must be resolutely child-centered. It cannot be based upon adults’ rights. Children usually benefit from a continuing relationship with a nonresident parent who wants to be involved in their lives. In the adjudication of relocation disputes, careful attention is needed to how close and how developmentally important the child’s relationship is with their nonresident parent. Consideration must also be given to whether the nonresident parent can move to the preferred location of the primary caregiver.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Child Custody
Journal of Child Custody FAMILY STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Since the days of Solomon, child custody issues have demanded extraordinary wisdom and insight. The Journal of Child Custody gives you access to the ideas, opinions, and experiences of leading experts in the field and keeps you up-to-date with the latest developments in the field as well as discussions elucidating complex legal and psychological issues. While it will not shy away from controversial topics and ideas, the Journal of Child Custody is committed to publishing accurate, balanced, and scholarly articles as well as insightful reviews of relevant books and literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信