DR. RICHARD WARSHAK: Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to address all of you.

     I'm a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Texas, Southwest Student Medical Center, in Dallas, and I'm the Director of the Texas Custody Research Project, and author of The Custody Revolution.

     For the past 20 years, I've been studying the effects of divorce on parents and children. The results of my research have appeared in professional journals and books and have earned me a grant from the National Institution of Mental Health to continue my studies, as well as an invitation to the White House to discuss custody reform.

     I've been asked to speak today on two of the issues that make up the mission of this committee. Joint custody and enforcement of existing custody and visitation orders. I'll be discussing systematic research in my field which I hope will inform your deliberations on these matters.

     As a scientist who has never been personally involved in any custody matters of my own, I began my studies with no preconceptions. Over the years, my opinions have been shaped, not only by my clinical experience, but by the accumulation of data and empirical research. In fact, if the hearings took place years ago, my testimony might well have been different.

     Existing research supports two main conclusions. Conventional approaches to custody result in an unacceptable number of casualties among parents and children in divorced families, and the second conclusion is that the number and severity of such casualties will be reduced with the adoption of measures designed to ensure children's meaningful relationships with both parents. Such measures include a rebuttable presumption of joint legal, and joint physical custody and mechanisms to enforce custody and visitation orders.

     Because of time constraints, I'll only be discussing research results, but certainly if you have any questions about any of the studies I mentioned, I'd be pleased to provide further information.

     CASKEY: Are they published?

     WARSHAK: Yes, they're all published in peer review journals. Some of them have been summarized in books afterwards, and I will be providing all the references to the committee.

     CASKEY: Okay.

     WARSHAK: And, I feel that's important, because different people can use the same data and arrive at vastly different conclusions, and the best way to resolve those discrepancies is by looking at the merits of the study, without constraints on the limitations.

     The other thing I'm aware is that in trying to influence public policy and legislation advocacy groups for men and for women, typically, will find the one study that supports their position, and overlook its design flaws, overlook other studies that don't confirm their position, and in order to overcome, or try to over the effects of this sort of bias, the American Psychological Association, which is the psychologist's equivalent of the AMA or the Bar, undertook an objective review of all the empirical research on joint custody, and the review looked to 23 different studies, and the focus was on looking at findings that were replicated by other studies, as well as looking at findings that came from methodologically rigorous studies. So, I hope my remarks today, will in addition to drawing on that review, will strive to conform to the same standard of objectivity.

     First, following the principal if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I think we should first establish that custody statutes are in need  of reform, and there have been numerous, well-controlled studies of families where children reside primarily with their mothers after divorce, which is the status quo, and these have shown us that this situation produces problems for the entire family. Every major study has concluded that divorced mothers feel overburdened with the responsibilities that accompany sole physical custody. They assume the job of two parents at a time when their own emotional capacity is likely to be weakened due to the stress of the divorce and when their children's emotional demands and behavior problems are usually multiplied. In the early weeks and months following their parent's separation and their father's departure from home, as most children show some negative reactions, not every child reacts in the same manner, but certain symptoms as stress do occur most frequently, including anger, and confusion, worry. A majority of children, two out of three in our Texas studies, think their lives were better before the divorce, and even more children, five out of six, long for their parents to reunite, and most yearn for more contact with their fathers. Now, it's tempting to dismiss these negative attitudes, as just temporary reactions, just fresh psychic wounds that are destined to heal overtime, but, unfortunately, this is not the case. The children were interviewed more than three years after their parent's separation. Now, experts advise divorcing parents to reassure children that divorce is a grownup thing between mommy and daddy, that the children are not getting divorced, and they're still loved. It's excellent advice. But, when the separation occurs, reality sets in. The children discover they must wait 12 days before seeing their father, and undergo the ordeal of such lengthy separations twice a month for the remainder of their childhood. And, those are the lucky ones, whose father's stick around. About 50 percent of the time, the fathers don't. Now, unless their father's work has kept him on the road 26 days a month, the children suffer a dramatic decline in the frequency and the quality of the contact with him. We symbolize this decline by labeling the contacts children have with their father after divorce, as visits. They live with their mother, they visit their father. What sort of contacts do we label as visits? When children go to school, we don't call it a visit, unless they happen to be visiting a teacher from the past, in a school they no longer attend. They practice with their soccer team, we don't call it a visit. When they attend their dance class, we don't call it a visit. But, if they are observing a class that is not their own, then we say they're just visiting. You all belong here. I'm just visiting. Visit is a term we use when we set a person apart in some fundamental way from others at the same location. A visitor is a guest in the home, and without thinking about it, every time we use this term to denote the time our children spend with their father, we're endorsing a destructive idea. We're telling the children that after the divorce, their association with their father must be transformed into something less than a normal parent-child relationship. So, rather than reassure children that they have not lost a parent as a result of the divorce, we give them the message that the father is devalued. He's no longer essential in their eyes. He's no longer a parent, in the same sense as he was before the divorce. When we restrict their contact with their father to every other weekend, then we remove the relationship from a natural daily interaction and we transplant it to the artificial turf of the weekends that are crowded with entertainment and gifts, for when his children become guests, it follows that the father must now be a host. He must entertain the guest, and, of course, this is what many divorced fathers do. In fact, so many fathers do it that the phrase,  "Disneyland Dad," is commonly used to describe the altered relationship. Divorced fathers become recreational directors. The research shows that homework and chores are no longer their concern. Conflict is minimized. Fun time is maximized. But, eventually, the visiting relationship wears thin. Everyone senses that something has been lost. The father-child relationship is no long as rich. It is no longer as comfortable. It is no longer as gratifying as before the divorce. Two weeks worth of living do not compress easily into two days. And, this is one reason why so many divorced fathers who dearly love their children and work hard to support them during the marriage, gradually drift out of their lives. So, when parents tell children that dad is moving out, but he's not divorcing the children, it's a lot like the lover who tries to ease the pain of breaking up by saying, we can still be friends.

     Of course, mothers with custody, also suffer when the father-child relationship is undermined. They are less likely to get child support payments, but they are more likely to receive the expressions of anger and frustration that the children suppress while they're guests in their father's home. When dad becomes the fun parent, mom becomes associated with boring daily routines, chores, and homework.

     Conventional custody arrangements post other risks to children in addition to the erosion of their relationship with their father. When compared to children in two-parent nondivorced families, children raised in mother custody homes, on average, have more emotional and behavior problems, poorer academic performance, and poorer relationships with their mothers and with peers. Boys suffer more than girls.

     Now, though, some of these problems diminish over two years, others last much longer. Indeed, one of the most important questions to ask in this regard, is how does divorce affect children in the long-run, and then what can we do to minimize these effects.

     One highly respected research project interviewed a nationally representative sample of over 1100 young adults, an average of 14 years after their parents divorced, and the study found that those who grew up in divorced homes were twice as likely to suffer a range of negative outcome, such as dropping out of high school. Only one problem though characterized the majority of the divorced group. So, in other words, the divorced group was twice as likely to get these problems, but on problem affected the majority of the divorced group. Two out of three children from divorced homes suffered chronically poor relationships with their fathers. That did not improve with time.

     Now, this figure is alarming, because in addition to the divorce research I've been discussing, we have three decades of studies that demonstrate that a good father-child relationship contributes in a major way to children's moral, intellectual and social development.

     To give just one example, psychologists are very interested in studying empathy, which is the capacity to feel another's pain. It's the one psychological trait that is lacking in most violent criminals. A Yale University study of children that began in the early 1950's reported in their 40-year follow-up, just a few years ago, that if all the factors they had studied, of all the measure they took in the children's home, back in the 50's, the one that was most predicted of the development of empathy in adults was the presence of a father in the home. So, it makes sense with the other research that shows that our prisons are overcrowded with men raised in father absent homes. And, indeed, a study of poor families in ghettos found that it was not poverty that was the major cause of crime, but the father's absence from the home.

     Thus far, I've been talking about families in which the mother has custody, and despite the toll this arrangement takes, the preference for maternal custody remains intact. I think, in part, because we have some fundamental beliefs that by nature women make better parents than men, or that children need their mothers more than they need their fathers. What we have found, though, as there's been growing awareness of the problems of the status quo, is courts and legislatures and families have explored other avenues, and one of them has been sole father custody. And, what we find in the studies, it's too early to report on the long-term outcome, the very long-term outcome of sole paternal custody, but we have learned a good deal about how people adjust in these families. For mothers, the outcome is mixed. Though half the women who relinquish custody voluntarily are comfortable with their decision, the other half come to regret it. It turns out it's as difficult for a mother to live apart from her children as it for a father.

     Fathers who have sole custody echo the complaints of mothers with sole custody. They feel overburdened, just as the mothers do, but the evidence indicates contrary to the stereo type that divorced men can rear and nurture their children competently and are equally capable of managing the responsibilities of custody, with the possible exception that the fathers have been found more effective when it comes to matters like discipline, enforcing limits, and that's particularly with boys.

     The bottom line, of course, is how the children do when the father has custodial responsibilities and the results of our studies in Texas, as well as ten independent studies conducted throughout the country, indicate that we cannot predict anything about how well a child will function merely by knowing the gender of that custodial parent. That type of consensus, in my field, really suggests a reform that is needed in custody policy, both to in discrimination against fathers who want to share custody, as well as against mothers, who suffer stigmas when they elect to share custody.

     What we look at next, then, are the fact that the comparisons between divorced and intact families really tell us only about average differences and in some cases, the two groups overlap. Common sense tells us that some children do better than others. They cope more successfully after divorce, and divorce researchers have identified several factors that promote that kind of well being. Children are more likely to suffer, they're more likely to avoid lingering, harmful, effects of divorce when their parents shield them from hostilities, when the parents continue to function as a parental team, when they relate to their children in a competent manner, when the children are provided liberal access to both parents, when they enjoy good support systems. For example, the children get to spend time with extended family, and when you minimize the extent of the life changes children are subjected to. For example, remaining in the same neighborhood, same school, that sort of thing.

     Some commentators have argued that psychological problems of mother custody children result from a decline in financial status, but, of course, that would not explain why boys do worse than girls in this situation, and the most in-depth study of mother custody families found that economic factors were not linked to child adjustment, and our studies in Texas replicated this finding, that we found that the pre-divorce socioeconomic status and the post-divorce income did not relate to the child outcomes in terms of the measures psychologically.

     Furthermore, not one of the children interviewed in these studies complained about material deprivation, even when asked directly to discuss the bad things about divorce. Many though complained about not spending enough time with either parent.

     When it comes to children's feelings, money is not where the action is. Children want and express the need in study after study for two actively involved parents who keep them out of adult conflicts. And, despite the earlier advantage that girls have, in mother custody homes of the boys, there have now been seven studies that have shown a sleeper effect in which these girls begin showing more problems as they reach adolescence and young adulthood.

     So, to recap some of the conclusions in the literature. Conventional custody creates casualties. Parents find it difficult to live apart their children. Children do best with two parents, actively involved in their lives. Single fathers do a competent job raising their children. Children benefit from a harmonious relationship between their parents.

     These findings have led many of my colleagues to look at joint custody to see if we could reduce parental conflict and allow children to maintain good relationships with both parents.

     Now, the first question the researchers have asked about joint physical custody is, is it feasible? Can two people who couldn't make a marriage work cooperate and communicate well enough to share custody? The most extensive study to address this question was conducted at the Center for Policy Research, in Denver. Dr. Jessica Pierson and Nancy Philonis analyzed data from 900 parents who had different types of custody, and the results showed that conflict between divorced parents, and I quote from their study, "did not appear to worsen as a result of the increased demand for interparental cooperation and communication in joint residential custody arrangements. To the contrary, parents with sole maternal custody reported the greatest deterioration in the relationships overtime. Parents with joint physical custody reported the most cooperation."

     The APA report, that I mentioned earlier, similarly concluded that joint custody results in either less or no greater conflict than sole maternal custody, and supporting that conclusion was the finding of decreased relitigation for joint custody versus sole maternal custody.

     So, according to the best scientific evidence available, parents with joint custody are able to maintain a collaborative parenting relationship and avoid the courthouse. Joint custody is feasible. So, it brings us to the next question, is joint physical custody good for parents, and, more important, is it good for children?

     Certainly the reduction and the likelihood of continued relitigation benefits the entire family, both emotionally and financially. The evidence shows that joint custody does enable fathers to avoid the superficial relationship characterized by visits. Joint custody does improve father satisfaction, and it does dramatically reduce the incidents of father drop-out. Joint custody benefits mothers as well. It allows them to step off the treadmill of full-time parenting. They're less overwhelmed by the amount of time and energy their children require.

     Dr. Eleanor McAbee, at Stanford University, has found that mothers with joint physical custody are more satisfied with living arrangements than those with sole physical custody.

     Now, regarding the affect of joint custody on children, studies in Arizona, California, and Pennsylvania, have found that children in joint physical custody are definitely more satisfied with their living arrangements. Now, some studies have found better adjustment among children in joint physical custody, such as higher self esteem or fewer behavior problems, having more positive attitudes about divorce.

     Other studies have found no difference on gross measures of behavior problems, but no study has found that joint physical custody is a disadvantage to children.

     In interviews, joint custody children in adolescence report a strong sense of being loved and supported by both parents. They feel that they're lucky compared to their peers in sole custody homes. But, to date, these indications of well being have not been documented with more objective measures. Nevertheless, the satisfaction that's reported by parents and children in joint physical custody deserves serious attention, and as with all forms of custody, children are adversely affected by high conflict between parents if the parents express this conflict by putting children in the middle.

     In addition to the alleviation of court dockets, as a result of the reduced relitigation rates, one of the strongest and potentially the most politically significantly benefit of joint physical custody is that it is associated with much higher levels of compliance with child support payments.

     In 1991, the census bureau reported that 90 percent of parents with joint custody paid their child support, compared with 79 percent of non-custodial parents with access to their children and only 44 percent of parents with neither joint custody nor access to children.

     In a representative sample of over 600 parents studied at Arizona State University, the investigators identified three causal factors that result in fathers remaining emotionally involved with their children and meeting their obligations to provide financial support. The three factors were, one, full employment. The second was short distances between the parents homes, and the third was giving divorced fathers a greater feeling of control over their children's destiny than they traditionally enjoy after divorce.

     I'd like to address four questions that are commonly asked regarding joint custody.

     First one is, should legislative guidelines allow the court to avoid joint physical custody against the objections of one parent. Sometimes it's been suggested that the court should never award joint physical custody in this circumstance. Critics argue that in cases where one parent doesn't favor the arrangement the children will be subjected to more of the parent's hostilities, and, therefore, if one parent unilaterally objects, then the court should be required to order sole custody.

     The problem with this approach is that it could result in more conflict between parents since it serves as an incentive to the parent desiring sole custody to keep conflict alive in order to strengthen his or her case in court. With the presumption of joint custody, such a payoff for conflict is eliminated.

     A parent's initial objection to sharing custody can reflect temporary fear and anger that will predictably abate in a few years. The evidence from two major studies indicates that conflict diminishes for a majority of divorced parents in the first several years after separation. Therefore, it would be a mistake to deprive children of the benefits throughout their life of joint physical custody, merely because their parents are experiencing the temporary high level of conflict.

     Now, if parents continue to involve children in grievances with their former spouses, the children will suffer, regardless of which custody arrangement is in force. Allowing the children to remain for longer periods of time with their father, for example, at one week instead of two days, would not increase the conflict in which children are exposed. In fact, children are most apt to witness parent's hostilities at the time of transfer between homes when the parents are in direct with each other, and with many joint physical custody schedules, the number of transfers between homes is fewer than with traditional visitation schedules, thereby reducing the number of occurrences in which children have to witness their parents' arguments.

     The second question that is asked is, does joint physical custody interfere with the child's sense of security and stability? Unless a child is to be denied contact with one parent, divorce necessarily divides the child's time between two homes. Dividing the time more evenly is not stressful for children. In fact, it promotes security, because it allows children to maintain a good relationship with both parents. The risk for children of divorce, comes from instability of relationships with parents, not in the physical environment. Children adjust on a daily basis to different rules and environments at home and school. They make transitions to day-care, to grandparents' homes, to extracurricular activities. There's absolutely no evidence and no reason to believe that children are unable to adjust to two homes or to make the transition from the home of one loving parent to the home of the other. The research clearly indicates that children are more satisfied with joint physical custody, so this should allay our concerns that the arrangement is creating too much stress for them.

     Does joint physical custody mean that a child's time will be divided 50/50 between homes? No. It implies that children's time with each parent is divided more evenly than in the typical sole custody arrangement, usually with no greater disparity than a two-thirds, one-third split, but the manner in which parents share child rearing responsibilities is as varied in shared custody as it is in intact nondivorced families. In fact, one of the advantages of joint physical custody is that it allows for more variation and flexibility to accommodate to the children's changing needs, and the changing circumstances of the parents.

     Finally, does presumptive joint custody mean that every divorced family will share custody? No. Courts will decline joint and order a joint custody, in cases where joint physical custody can pose a danger to the physical or psychological welfare of the children.

     Now, court orders designed to benefit children, such as child support and access to both parents, obviously, do not achieve their intended effect if they're not obeyed, and I had just a few remarks on the issue of enforcement of existing custody and visitation orders.

     The psychological literature does not allow definitive conclusions about which methods of enforcement are most efficacious, but it does show why quick, easy, and low-cost enforcement mechanisms should be a legislative priority.

     There's a critical period following the parents initial separation in which relatively, permanent patterns of contact are established between children and their parents. Unfortunately, a parent's active involvement with children during the marriage is no guarantee that the parent will remain involved. As I've already discussed, the father-child relationship is vulnerable to disentergration after the marriage dissolves.

     One study studied a group, Dr. Edward Kroch, studied a group of noncustodial fathers who had been very attached to and very involved with their children during the marriage but then lost contact with them after divorce. The most frequent reason given for their disengagement, 90 percent of them cited this reason, was that the mother's denial of access and obstruction of visitation. Basically, they just dropped out of their children's lives.

     Now, if they had had a quick and easy access to enforcement mechanisms, it could have meant the difference to their children between growing up in a father absent home versus having a father available to them.

     Enforcement needs to be quick, because the pattern of disengagement becomes entrenched and is then much more resistant to reversal. Also, the longer the children are kept from seeing a parent, the more vulnerable they are to becoming alienated from the parent. If they are taught to devalue their father, for example, the most effective means of resisting and reversing such programming, is to provide them with opportunities to be with him and to experience his love and attention. If too much times goes by before the contact is reestablished, the damage to the relationship is much harder to repair.

     Incidentally, you may hear from lobbyist who purport to represent an entire gender in their support for opposition of proposed legislation. My experience is that this particular issue cuts across gender lines. Usually when children's access to a parent is denied, the children lose touch with that entire side of the family. So, for every mother, for example, who prefers to raise her children without a father, or at least regulate the father's access at her discretion, you'll find a paternal grandmother or aunt who opposes  her efforts, and though advocates may claim to represent the interests of fathers or mothers, these interests are not necessarily compatible with those of boys and girls, especially when the advocates are seeking to unduly restrict children's contact with a parent.

     So, just to conclude, the weight of the evidence supports the contention that most divorcing families would profit with a legal presumption favoring joint physical custody, contingent on the absence of evidence that this would jeopardize the welfare of children. Such a presumption would institutionalize the expectation that both parents will continue to maintain responsibility for the children and remove social stigma for mothers who share custody. These kinds of expectations are an enormous influence on our attitudes and behavior.

     You know, a generation ago, fathers pace the hospital waiting room while their children were being born. All it took was a change in social norms to bring fathers into the delivery room, and what was once virtually unheard of, is now the routine procedure.

     Most divorcing couples now assume that their children will have to forego closeness to their fathers and that this is a natural consequence of divorce.

     A presumption of joint custody would change our view of what is normal after divorce. It presents a higher standard as a beacon showing parents a more civilized way to have their divorce. It holds the possibility of removing the issue of custody from parental warfare. Parents may be less eager to sue for custody, and I see this in my clinical work, when they know the court will probably declare neither the parent the winner, and instead expect the parents to cooperate enough to share custody. This will certainly spare the family a lot of trauma of custody litigation. It will spare the state the expense of litigation.

     Even when it does not result in an attenuation of conflict, joint custody still proves it's worth by enabling children to maintain a relationship with each parent, which particularly for a child from a divorced home who is seeing that love is not permanent, they need this kind of reassurance. It safeguards their birthright to two parents.

     When it comes to the very small group of parents who are locked in these terribly caustic battles, there is no research that allows us to determine whether children would be better in sole custody or joint custody homes. But, these families represent a tiny minority of families, about two and a half percent of them, and they certainly shouldn't serve as the template for social policy.

     It's not for everyone. It's not a panacea, but joint custody is the proper arrangement for the vast majority of divorced parents. Common sense, compassion for children, and a consensus of expert opinion and empirical research all argue for the endorsement of a joint custody presumption in Missouri.

     Thank you.

     CASKEY: Any questions?

     RIDGEWAY: I'm sorry, Senator, I've got a couple questions.
 
    You had just indicated right at the tail end of your testimony there that the parents who couldn't get along, where joint custody would not be appropriate, where it was the very small minority of the cases?

     WARSHAK: Not the parents who couldn't get along, but, the parents who are in the top levels of the highest, highest, conflict, the ones who are kidnaping their children, the ones who are constantly in court with their children have been identified about two and a half percent of all divorcing couples fall into that bracket. For those families, we don't know, we do know there's only been one study on this that does show that even in those cases, if the court awards joint custody, then the children don't lose a parent, whereas, in the cases where the court says one or the other parent has custody, the other one has to drop out.

     RIDGEWAY: Well, that's another question I have for you. Out of the cases in the couples on which you did your research, which, by the way, did you say how many couples that was?

     WARSHAK: Well, actually, I've been reporting on over 50 studies, so we're talking about thousands of families that was reported. My own studies, in Texas, have involved 280 families.

     RIDGEWAY: And, were they all socioeconomic backgrounds?

     WARSHAK: Well, the groups were matched. In those studies we were comparing mother custody and father custody families, so the groups were matched. There was a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. But the average was the same for the two groups.

     RIDGEWAY: And, out of those that you did your research on, how many of those were court imposed joint custody, as opposed to them arriving at some sort of a settlement agreement where that they could live with joint custody and work to develop a plan?

     WARSHAK: In these studies we did in Texas, none of those were joint custody studies. Out of the families that had sort of de facto joint custody, ones where one parent had sole custody, but there was a lot of access to the other parent. The ones we looked at were not a litigation sample. So, most of them had arrived at it without having to go to court. There really is only one study where a joint custody has been imposed against the objections of a parent in very, very high conflict families, and that's that one I told you about. And even that study found no difference between the joint custody children and the sole custody children on the measures of psychological  adjustment, but that doesn't mean that - it just means we don't know which would be best.

     RIDGEWAY: Did your research tell you anything then about factors that would tend to suggest that maybe joint custody was not the direction to go, such as ......

     WARSHAK: Yes.

     RIDGEWAY:  ......just giant conflicts between the parents?

     WARSHAK: Well, the conflict is a difficult one, because conflict is much higher at the time of separation when these decisions are being made, but the research indicates that the conflict for the majority of families will abate within two years. But, the research does show, for example, if there's too much of a geographical distance between the parents, then the joint physical custody is not going to be in children's best interest. You know, if they live in different states, for example.

     What the research shows is that the same factors that help a sole custody arrangement work well for children, operate in joint custody families. The greater the extent of cooperation between the parents, the better the children will do. The less the children are exposed to conflict, the less they're used to carry messages back and forth, the better they'll do. But, that's true in sole custody homes, as well.

     RIDGEWAY: I guess, my only concern is, and I agree with you. I mean, obviously, it seems to me that it would be almost stating the obvious that children do better when their parents try to cooperate even if the parents don't like each other, when they try to cooperate when it comes to the children.

     But, my concern is, is that there is a difference between trying to foster an atmosphere of cooperation regarding the children and imposing a standard that requires joint custody and then branching off from there with different mitigating factors. I don't know if that makes a whole lot of sense, but I worry, I'm a little bit concerned about the rebuttable presumption issue, and it seems like that maybe I can agree with you that joint custody is a good idea, if parties are willing to cooperate, but I think it's a separate issue, and correct me, if you think I'm wrong here, if the court imposed the presumption, that there must joint custody absent other factors.

     WARSHAK: If the court has to impose a custody solution. I know  you're talking then about couples who, despite whatever the statutes read and were unable to reach an agreement. So, in states where there is a presumption of joint custody, the couples who end up getting to court, for example, Texas has a joint custody presumption, couples who end up getting to court are ones who for some reason think that they can pass the rebuttable presumption. They have their accusations of abuse, accusations of gross neglect. Otherwise, what the statutes serves is as a backdrop for negotiations with parents. In other words, if there is a presumption of joint custody, then parents realize they're not going to have much to gain by going to court unless they can really prove a very strong case.

     The same way that in states that have some kind of minimal standard, that becomes the standard, and parents know that. So, unless you have a family where you're thinking the children shouldn't have access to one of the parents, they're going to see that parent anyway. The question is, are they going to see that parent for a little bit of more time? If there's a lot of conflict between the parents, the studies show that the children aren't exposed to more conflict with joint custody homes. In fact, the odds are, that they can be exposed to less, because the schedules can be arranged in such a way that the children are not drawn in the middle of that.

     RIDGEWAY: Thank you.

     DOUGHERTY: Could I ask, in regards to the way the statute's phrased right now in terms of the Missouri statute, in trying to find out what is in the best interest of the child. Would there be a strong demand to change that? Now, I understand all the background information that you've given in terms of contact with the child. I mean, it's pretty easy to understand, but in terms of changing the statute that we've already got?

     WARSHAK: In my reading of the statute in that, you know, I'm not an attorney, and I'm not familiar with......

     DOUGHERTY: That makes two of us.

     WARSHAK: ....... how this is working in your state, but, it looks like a weak wording for joint custody, weak enough that I would predict that it would lead to more disputes among parents who feel that they have something to gain by going into court. The advantage of a stronger statute is that parents get the message that there is not much to gain by going to court, unless they really can present significant evidence that the child's welfare is in jeopardy. And so, the result, then, is less use of the courts to resolve custody disputes more things in negotiations.

     CASKEY: Thank you, very much, doctor.

     WARSHAK: Yet, the other is that the statute doesn't seem to discriminate between joint legal and joint physical when it talks about the preferences.

     CASKEY: Thank you, doctor, for coming and sharing your research with us. We appreciate it.

     WARSHAK: Thank you, Senator.