Opinion ID: 1677581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: frequent and continuing contact

Text: At common law, residence restrictions on children of dissolved marriages were unnecessary because the father was granted full custody as a matter of course. [6] With the ascendancy of the women's rights movement in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, however, the preference for fathers gave way to a preference for mothers. The tender years doctrine held that women are uniquely gifted to meet the psychological and emotional needs of the young. [7] The equal rights movement of this century led courts to reassess this view and recognize that fathers too are capable of caring for young. This recognition, when combined with the publication of psychological studies emphasizing the importance of both parents in the rearing of children, prompted states to pass joint custody legislation. [8] The move toward joint custody in Florida led to the Dissolution of Marriage Act of 1971, [9] which substantially increased the father's right to custody and visitation, and the Shared Parental Responsibility Act of 1982, [10] which is codified in chapter 61, Florida Statutes (1989), and provides in part: [61.13(2)](b)1. The court shall determine all matters relating to custody of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child... . It is the public policy of this state to assure that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of childrearing... . 2. The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.... ... . b. The court shall order sole parental responsibility, with or without visitation rights, to the other parent when it is in the best interests of the minor child. § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1989). Under this statute, it is presumed that both parties to a dissolution will thereafter share jointly in deciding important issues and assuming major responsibilities of childrearing. The benefits of joint custody, or shared parental responsibility, are beyond dispute. [11] In addition to joint custody, the statute calls for frequent and continuing contact with both parents. This emphasis on frequency of visitation is of crucial importance in removal cases, where increased geographic separation often necessitates less frequent visits of longer duration for the noncustodial parent. Our policy favoring frequent visitation is grounded in widely recognized social and psychological data, as summarized by Justice Schreiber of the New Jersey Supreme Court: Professor Biller states that investigators point out the importance of frequent  father-child visiting patterns. Biller, Father Absence, Divorce, and Personality Development, in M. Lamb, supra, at 527 (emphasis added). Kurdek and Berg list the extent of  regular visitation by the noncustodial parent as an important predictor of children's adjustments to their parents' divorce. Kurdek & Berg, Correlates of Children's Adjustment to Their Parents' Divorces, in Children and Divorce 50 (Kurdek ed. 1983) (emphasis added). Dr. Gardner, a psychiatrist, when asked to testify about optimal visitation arrangements, states that shorter, more frequent visitations [with the noncustodial parent] are preferable to fewer, longer ones. R. Gardner, Psychotherapy with Children of Divorce 379 (1976). Rogers & Long found that boys whose fathers were out of town for long periods of time had more difficulties in their sexual identification and development than boys who saw their fathers regularly. Rogers and Long, Male Models and Sexual Identification: A Case from the Out Island Bahamas, 27 Human Organization 326-31 (1958). Wallerstein and Kelly found that [i]n the youngest children the good father-child relationship was closely related to a regular and frequent visiting schedule and to a visiting pattern that included continuity and pleasure in the visiting. For most children, this meant overnight and weekend stays. J. Wallerstein & J. Kelly, [ Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce 219 (1980)] (emphasis added). The authors also found that infrequent visiting pattern[s] had an adverse impact on children's academic performance, id. at 283, and noted a correlation between infrequent visits from the father and depression among young boys, id. at 172. In sum, the social science literature is virtually unanimous in stressing the importance to children of regular, frequent contact with both their parents and in recommending that children's relationships with their noncustodial parents not be lightly disturbed or frustrated. Cooper v. Cooper, 99 N.J. 42, 491 A.2d 606, 622-23 (1984) (Schreiber, J., concurring). Thus, under our statutory scheme, parental rights in post-dissolution settings consist of three components  custody, residence, and visitation  which are governed by policies favoring shared parental responsibility and frequent and continuing contact between the child and both parents. While actual custody is rarely in dispute in removal cases, primary physical residence and visitation often are. Florida's district courts generally use a two-pronged test for determining when a custodial parent has a legal right to remove a child: The custodial parent must show that the move is prompted by a substantial change in circumstances and is in the child's best interests. [12] In applying this test, unfortunately, our courts are in disarray, [13] as are courts throughout the nation. [14] Accordingly, I would set forth the following guidelines.