Contents
The alternating residence in questions
It was to be a bill passed without difficulty. Missed. The examination of the text “Parental authority and the interests of the child”, proposed by the Socialist deputy Marie-Anne Chapdelaine, had to be postponed sine die because of the avalanche of amendments tabled by the opposition. Only the article on the mandate of daily education for the step-parent could be adopted. The other articles were the subject of a lively debate inside and outside the Chamber, such as the one stipulating that the child would benefit de facto from a double residence, with each of his parents. The measure was intended to be symbolic, it was to do away with the notion of “main residence”, which too often gives the non-custodial parent the feeling of being wronged. For the authors of the text, this double domiciliation did not mean a systematic implementation, by default, of a joint alternation of custody between father and mother. But the historical attackers of the alternating residence are convinced that it was indeed an attempt to impose it as the priority mode of organization after any separation. More than 5 experts and associations have therefore stepped up to the plate with a petition denouncing “alternate residency imposed at all ages”. At their head are Maurice Berger, head of the child psychiatry department at the CHU de Saint-Étienne, Bernard Golse, head of the department at the Necker-Enfants Malades hospital and Jacqueline Phélip, president of the “L’Enfant devant” association. .
Alternate residency, contraindicated for toddlers
These experts ask that the law prohibiting the ordering of alternate residence for a child under 6 years old, except with the voluntary consent of both parents, be enshrined in law. It turns out that this is the least controversial point. Most specialists in childhood, whether for or against the generalization of work-study programs, believe thatit must be adapted to the age of the child, and not necessarily equal from the start. Almost unanimously, the 50/50 and 7 days / 7 rate is considered aberrant for a child under 3 years old. Then, as always, there are the absolute “anti” and the moderate “pro”. Depending on whether the expert requested applies the theory of attachment to the letter and is more or less “pro-mother”, he will consider that the child should never sleep outside the maternal home before the age of 2 years, or will feel that the toddler can move away from the maternal figure, but within a reasonable time (not more than 48 hours).
In fact, few parents claim this type of care for very young children, and in any case, few judges grant it.. According to figures from the Ministry of Justice from 2012 *, 13% of children under 5 years old are in joint residence, compared to 24,2% of 5-10 year olds. And for children under 5, it is a flexible distribution, and not the weekly 50/50, which is preferred. Gérard Poussin, professor in clinical psychology, presented as a supporter of the alternate residency, told in a Quebec journal that he had given up publishing the work of two of his students, because in their sample of thirty-six children, only six of them were between 3 and 6 years old, and none were less than 3 years old. Even for research work, it is therefore difficult to find very young children subject to a totally binary rhythm!
Alternate residency, to be avoided in conflicting situations
This is the other warning issued by the 5 petition. In the event of a conflict between the parents, recourse to alternating residence must be prohibited.. This warning makes the fathers’ collectives jump. ” Too easy ! », They argue. It suffices for the mother to express her disagreement for custody to return to her. This is a debate within the debate. Fathers who feel wronged by the law often put forward the “parental alienation syndrome”, according to which a parent (in this case the mother) manipulates his child and causes him to feel rejection for the other. parent. The experts who signed the petition against alternate residence dispute the existence of this syndrome and also criticize the other aspect of the bill: the establishment of a civil fine imposed on the parent which would hinder the exercise of the parental authority over her ex-spouse. The subtext is quite obvious: mothers would always be in good faith when they refuse to present the child to the ex-spouse to allow him to exercise his right of accommodation. However, many magistrates and lawyers recognize that there is indeed a temptation among some of them to “capture” the child and destroy the image of the father.. The bad understanding between the parents is in any case advanced in 35% of the decisions refusing an alternating residence. But, interestingly, when there is disagreement between the parents, the main residence is less often attributed to the mother (63% against 71% in amicable agreements) and twice as often to the father (24% against 12% in amicable agreements). The fathers are therefore not, each time, the big losers in the affair, contrary to what the movements of fathers regularly suggest.
Eighteen months ago, when these fathers climbed onto cranes to demand more equal access to their children, specialists recalled the reality of the figures: only 10% of separations are conflictual, most men do not seek custody of their children, and 40% of alimony is unpaid. After a separation, the norm would rather be the gradual, more or less voluntary estrangement of the father, then the isolation and precariousness of the mother.. Faced with this very real and alarming situation, the 5 petitioners nevertheless preferred to combat a hypothetical risk, that of the systematization of alternating residence for children under 500 years old.
* Civil justice assessment center, “The residence of children of separated parents, From the parents’ request to the judge’s decision”, June 2012.