In this argument the unspoken assumption is that because one or both of the parents won't cooperate with the other or one parent won't agree to joint custody, any form of joint custody is impossible. This tactic is often used by mothers, since they are overwhelmingly more likely to gain custody. Even though the parents are unable to stay married to each other they may still be able to collaborate on tasks needed to raise their children. By ordering both parents to work together the court makes it clear that both parents are important. Another factor is that over time, the animosity level between divorced parents often drops.
Emotional wounds heal, and the task of raising children can serve as a focal point of cooperation.
This 'dependency' is, in actuality, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the child learns that they can be away from the 'favored' parent without anything 'bad' happening, they will become more self-assured and experience less separation anxiety. Most children naturally want to love and bond with both parents unless there has been some sort of actual abuse going on. It is important to find out if the child is actually making these kinds of statements or if these are claims made by one parent in an attempt to prevent or reduce contact with the other parent. If the child is in fact making these statements, the possibility of PAS should be investigated.