Fifty moves a year: is there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems in children?

Fifty moves a year: is there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems ?

Authors: Malin Bergström, [1] Emma Fransson, [1] Bitte Modin, [1] Marie Berlin, [2 & 3] Per A Gustafsson, [4] Anders Hjern [1 & 5]

[1] Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS), Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Department of Sociology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
[4] Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
[5] Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Correspondence to Malin Bergström, Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS), Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 10691, Sweden;
Received 14 October 2014, Revised 29 January 2015, Accepted 4 February 2015
To cite: Bergström M, Fransson E, Modin B, et al. J Epidemiol Community Health Published Online First: [April 28, 2015] doi:10.1136/jech-2014-205058


Background – In many Western countries, an increasing number of children with separated parents have joint physical custody, that is, live equally much in their parent’s respective homes. In Sweden, joint physical custody is particularly common and concerns between 30% and 40% of the children with separated parents. It has been hypothesised that the frequent moves and lack of stability in parenting may be stressful for these children.

Methods – We used data from a national classroom survey of all sixth and ninth grade students in Sweden (N=147839) to investigate the association between children’s psychosomatic problems and living arrangements. Children in joint physical custody were compared with those living only or mostly with one parent and in nuclear families. We conducted sex-specific linear regression analyses for z-transformed sum scores of psychosomatic problems and adjusted for age, country of origin as well as children’s satisfaction with material resources and relationships to parents. Clustering by school was accounted for by using a two-level random intercept model.

Results – Children in joint physical custody suffered from less psychosomatic problems than those living mostly or only with one parent but reported more symptoms than those in nuclear families. Satisfaction with their material resources and parent–child relationships was associated with children’s psychosomatic health but could not explain the differences between children in the different living arrangements.

Conclusions – Children with non-cohabitant parents experience more psychosomatic problems than those in nuclear families. Those in joint physical custody do however report better psychosomatic health than children living mostly or only with one parent. Longitudinal studies with information on family factors before and after the separation are needed to inform policy of children’s postseparation living arrangements.


During the past 20 years, it has become more common for children in the Western world to live alternatively and equally much with both parents after a parental separation. [1–3] In Sweden, this practice of joint physical custody (JPC) is particularly frequent and has risen from about 1–2% in the mid-1980s to between 30% and 40% of the children with separated parents in 2010. [4] A possible reason behind the increase may be Sweden’s active policy for parental equality. [5] In 1974, Sweden, for example, was the first country to allow mothers and fathers to use paid parental leave, and since 1976 parents could continue having joint legal custody after a separation. The proportion of Swedish children born out of wedlock or to non-cohabiting parents is low compared with other Western countries. In 2009, the share was 6%. [4] Other assumed reasons behind the increase of JPC are women’s participation in the labour force, [5] which is very high in Sweden, [6] and changes in Family Law facilitating JPC. [7 8] The frequency of JPC in, for example, Belgium [9] and Australia [10] has increased substantially after such legislative changes.

In international research, JPC has sometimes been defined as children living “at least one third of the time with each parent” [11] or included children whose parents have joint legal custody in this category. [12] Joint legal custody, however, does not imply that the children necessarily live equal parts of the time with the two parents. In Sweden, JPC is so widespread that a more stringent categorization (50/50) is justifiable and has been applied in recent publications. [13–15] In fact, the practice of JPC seems to constitute a new norm for separating Swedish parents, since 50% of recently split-up families report their children spending half the time in each parent’s home. [4] Furthermore, we have shown in a previous study that over 85% of all Swedish children aged 12–15 years live at least partly with both their parents, regardless of whether they are cohabiting or not. [13] Despite the high frequency of JPC in Sweden, it is still possible that families with this arrangement vary in their socioeconomic characteristics from those with sole custody solutions. Results from a recent longitudinal study indicate that the more favourable socioeconomic situation that used to characterise JPC families no longer prevails as JPC has become more common, [9] but other current research still suggests that parental health and well-being differ between parents with joint and sole care. [16]

Several studies over a long period of time have established that children with separated parents show higher risks for emotional problems and social maladjustment than those with cohabiting parents. [17–19] One explanation for these increased risks may be the actual experience of the separation process and the emotional crisis possibly associated with this. Parental separation may also expose children to loss of social, economic and human capital. [4, 14] Other explanatory factors may derive from characteristics typical of separating parents such as lower relationship satisfaction and higher conflict levels also before the separation. [4] The rising numbers of children with JPC have concerned child clinicians as well as researchers on the subject. [20, 21] Child experts have worried about children’s potential feelings of alienation from living in two separate worlds, [20–22] increased exposure to parental conflict [12, 22] and other stressors that JPC may impose on a child. [22] Such daily stressors may be long distances to school, friends and leisure activities, lack of stability in parenting and home environment and a need to adjust to the demands of two different family lives. [12, 22] The logistics of travelling between their homes and keeping in contact with friends has been stated as a draw-back of JPC in interview studies with children. [23–25] Older adolescents, in particular, indicated that they preferred to be in one place. [23]

The worries regarding children’s well-being in JPC are enhanced by a simultaneous increase in children’s psychological and emotional complaints and psychosomatic symptoms in Scandinavia. [26, 27] The higher frequency of such symptoms has been interpreted as a sign of increased stress in children’s lives [28] and could hypothetically also be related to stressors imposed by JPC. Already, stressful circumstances such as bullying, [28] economic stress in the family, [29] peer and teacher relationships, [30, 31] schoolwork pressure [31] and lack of emotional support from the parents [32] have been shown to be related to psychosomatic symptoms in Swedish adolescents. However, even if the relationship between stress, psychological symptoms and psychosomatic problems is established, [28] the mechanisms of how stress exposure and recurrent pain are associated are not fully understood. [33]

In this study, we wanted to investigate if the high frequencies of JPC and of psychosomatic problems in Swedish schoolchildren were related. We used a national sample of Swedish children aged 12 and 15 years to compare psychosomatic problems in children with JPC with those in nuclear families and living mostly and only with one parent. We also wanted to study the influence of two previously identified stressors: children’s parental relations and material resources, on psychosomatic problems in relation to living arrangements.


Data source
We used data from a national classroom survey, conducted in 2009, of psychosomatic symptoms in children aged 12 (grade 6) and 15 years (grade 9). The survey was conducted by Statistics Sweden under the mandate of the Swedish National Institute of Public Health. [34] We were granted permission by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare to use the data. For the survey, 207 700 pupils were eligible and 172 391 (83%) agreed to participate and were present in school when the survey was conducted. Of these, we included 147 839 children who had completed the outcome instrument on psychosomatic problems and answered the questions on living arrangements, sex, age, country of birth and the items in the covariates ‘parent–child relations’ and ‘material resources’.

Outcome measures
We used the PsychoSomatic Problems (PSP) scale as the outcome measure. This instrument includes eight items on psychosomatic problems in schoolchildren and adolescents. [35] The eight questions concern the past 6 months and ask if the respondent had difficulties (1) concentrating (2) sleeping; suffered from (3) headaches (4) stomach aches; felt (5) tense, (6) sad (7) dizzy and had (8) little appetite. The response alter- natives are never, seldom, sometimes, often and always. Analyses of the dimensionality of the scale justify that the sums of scores are summarised across the items and transformed into a linear interval scale and have shown acceptable reliability and validity. [35] Cronbach’s α for the scale was 0.87. Scores were transformed to z-values with a mean value of 0 and an SD of 1 for the multiple linear regression analyses. [36]

In table 2, we also present proportions of children who reported that they ‘often’ or ‘always’ suffered from the respective problems (these response alternatives merged).

Categorical variable
Living arrangements were based on children’s answers in the survey. The family arrangements were worded as follows: nuclear family; “always together with both mother and father”, JPC; “approximately equally much with mother and father, for example one week with mother and the second week with father”, mostly with one parent; “mostly with mother, sometimes with father” or “mostly with father, sometimes with mother” and only with one parent; “only with mother” or “only with father”. We merged the gender-specific alternatives in the ‘mostly’ and ‘only’ categories since the numbers in the categories ‘mostly’ and ‘only’ with fathers were too small to allow for any meaningful statistical analyses.

The covariates sex, age, children’s and parent’s country of origin were obtained from the questionnaire. Domicile was obtained from the National SIRIS database and categorised in accordance with a categorisation provided by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. As potential mediators, we used sum scores of two subscales of subjective well-being from the KIDSCREEN-52 instrument: [37] parent–child relations (six items, eg, Have you been able talk to your parent(s) when you wanted to?) and material resources (three items, eg, Have you had enough money to do the same things as your friends?). These scales were completed at the same time as the PSP scale and the questions concern experiences from the previous week with response alternatives assessing either intensity (not at all-slightly-moderately-very-extremely) or frequency (never-seldom-sometimes-often-always). High scores indicate more satisfaction. This instrument has shown acceptable reliability and validity. [38] Cronbach’s α for the parent–child relations scale was 0.91 and for the material resources scale 0.89.

Statistical analysis
Linear multiple regression analyses, stratified by sex, were used to calculate β coefficients on z-transformed sum scores of psychosomatic problems for the four living arrangements with JPC as a reference group. In model 1, the confounders grade (6 vs 9) and country of origin (Swedish vs foreign born) are included. Model 2 includes the aforementioned confounders and continuous scores from the covariate ‘material resources scale’. In model 3, the confounders and continuous scores from the covariate ‘parents–child relations scale’ are included. Finally, Model 4 is adjusted for all the aforementioned confounders and covariates. Clustering by school was accounted for by using a two-level random intercept model.

Interaction analyses demonstrated sex differences in psycho- somatic symptoms in relation to all living arrangements, and we therefore decided to perform the analysis separately for girls and boys. There were no significant interaction effects for age and JPC.


Descriptive statistics
As shown in table 1, 69% of the 147 839 children lived in nuclear families, 11% in JPC, 8% mostly with one parent and 13% only with one parent. The majority of those living mostly or only with one parent lived with their mother. About every sixth child in these arrangements lived with the father. Foreign born children had similar rates of separated parents as Swedish born children but JPC was more common for children with both parents born in Sweden (12%) than if one (10%) or both parents (2%) were foreign born. There were small differences in living arrangements in relation to children’s sex and domicile, but a larger proportion of the children aged 15 years lived with only one parent, compared with children aged 12 years. The differences were statistically significant at the <0.001 level.

Table 1 Characteristics of children by family type
Intact family Joint physical custody Mostly one parent Only one parent
N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent
Sample size 101 738 69 15 633 11 11 468 8 19 000 13
Girls 51 003 68 7610 10 5916 8 10 216 14
Boys 50 735 69 8023 11 5552 8 8784 12
Resident parent
Mother 9455 82 15 889 84
Father 2013 18 3111 16
Age (years)
12 48 348 71 7655 11 4984 7 6855 10
15 53 390 67 7978 10 6484 8 12 145 15
Large city 31 224 68 5662 12 3167 7 6021 13
Small town 49 470 69 7663 11 5798 8 9054 13
Rural 20 938 70 2696 9 2495 8 3941 13
Children’s national origin
Swedish 93 908 69 15 319 11 10 982 8 16 507 12
Other 7830 70 314 3 486 4 2493 22
Parents’ national origin
Both Swedish 75 384 70 13 220 12 8787 8 10 689 10
One Swedish 9957 58 1782 10 1669 10 3829 22
Neither Swedish 15 684 74 489 2 902 4 4098 19

Table 2 Frequency of psychosomatic problems by gender and family type
Psychosomatic problems Nuclear family Joint physical custody Mostly with one parent Only with one parent
Z/mean Always/often Z/mean Always/often Z/mean Always/often Z/mean Always/often
Girls N=74 745
Total score 0.14 NA 0.33 NA 0.49 NA 0.53 NA
Concentration 0.02 11 0.14 13 0.29 18 0.35 21
Sleeping 0.06 16 0.17 18 0.30 23 0.36 26
Headaches 0.13 16 0.23 18 0.38 23 0.43 25
Stomach aches 0.17 12 0.30 14 0.42 18 0.48 21
Tense 0.12 13 0.23 15 0.35 18 0.38 21
Little appetite 0.11 11 0.24 13 0.38 18 0.44 21
Sad 0.23 16 0.42 22 0.54 27 0.61 29
Dizzy 0.06 11 0.18 13 0.32 18 0.40 21
Boys n=73 094
Total score −0.33 NA −0.21 NA −0.12 NA −0.10 NA
Concentration −0.16 9 −0.04 10 0.07 14 0.11 16
Sleeping −0.18 10 −0.11 11 −0.01 15 0.04 17
Headaches −0.25 8 −0.16 9 −0.08 10 −0.05 12
Stomach aches −0.29 5 −0.22 5 −0.16 6 −0.14 7
Tense −0.22 6 −0.16 7 −0.10 8 −0.07 10
Little appetite −0.23 5 −0.17 6 −0.11 7 −0.06 8
Sad −0.38 5 −0.30 6 −0.22 8 −0.19 9
Dizzy −0.19 6 −0.11 7 −0.02 9 0.01 10
NA, not available.

Psychosomatic problems
As shown in table 2, children in nuclear families reported the least problems in terms of mean values on all items and total mean score. Children in JPC had slightly more problems, followed by those living mostly with one parent. Children who lived with only one parent reported most problems, in terms of mean scores, on all items. Also, the proportion of children who always or often suffered from different symptoms was highest among the latter group. These patterns were similar for girls and boys. For the sexes taken together, sleeping problems were most frequent: 22% among those living only with one parent, 19% living mostly with one parent, 14% in JPC and 13% in nuclear families (sexes taken together). Also, suffering often or always from headaches was common: 19% among those living with only one parent, 17% living mostly with one parent, 14% in JPC and 12% in nuclear families (sexes taken together).

Girls suffered from more problems than boys both when the PSP scale was analysed in terms of mean values and as a frequency of symptoms. Sadness was the most frequent problem for girls in all living arrangements, followed by sleeping problems and headaches. For boys, sleeping and concentration problems were most common. All these differences were statistically significant at the <0.001 level.

Table 3 Two-level random intercept linear regression model: standardised β coefficients and CIs for psychosomatic symptoms in relation to living arrangements (N=147839)
Nuclear families Mostly with one parent Only with one parent
β CI β CI β CI
Model 1 −0.18 −0.20 to −0.15 0.14 0.11 to 0.18 0.19 0.16 to 0.22
Model 2 −0.11 −0.14 to −0.09 0.09 0.06 to 0.12 0.10 0.07 to 0.13
Model 3 −0.09 −0.11 to −0.07 0.05 0.02 to 0.08 0.07 0.05 to 0.10
Model 4 −0.07 −0.09 to −0.05 0.04 0.01 to 0.07 0.05 0.02 to 0.08
Model 1 −0.11 −0.13 to −0.09 0.10 0.07 to 0.13 0.13 0.10 to 0.16
Model 2 −0.08 −0.10 to −0.06 0.06 0.03 to 0.09 0.06 0.03 to 0.09
Model 3 −0.06 −0.08 to −0.04 0.04 0.01 to 0.07 0.06 0.04 to 0.09
Model 4 −0.05 −0.06 to −0.03 0.03 −0.00 to 0.05 0.03 0.01 to 0.06
Joint physical custody (equally much with both parents) serves as the reference category.
Model 1 is adjusted for age and country of origin, model 2 is adjusted as model 1 and for the child’s perception of own material resources. Model 3 is adjusted as model 1 and for the child’s satisfaction with parents–child relations. Model 4 is adjusted for all the previous variables. Clustering by school is accounted for by using a two-level random intercept model.

Standardised β coefficients for psychosomatic problems in relation to living arrangements are presented in table 3. They show that, compared with children in JPC, those living mostly or only with one parent report more psychosomatic problems than those in nuclear families. Adjusting for age and country of origin had practically no effect on the outcome, which is why the crude model is not presented. The β estimates for children living mostly or only with one parent become weaker after adjustment for satisfaction with material resources (model 2) and parent–child relationships (model 3). Model 4 shows that both boys and girls who live mostly or only with one parent still have higher risks for psychosomatic problems than those in JPC, when all the aforementioned variables are included. Also, the lower risk for children in nuclear families, compared with JPC, remains through all the models.

Overall, girls report more psychosomatic problems than boys. Interaction analyses indicate interaction effects for psychosomatic problems and sex in all living arrangements. No differences for 12-year-old and 15-year-old children were found for the associations between JPC and psychosomatic symptoms.

In this cross-sectional study, based on a national survey of nearly 150 000 Swedish children aged 12 and 15 years, children who live equally much with both parents after a parental separation suffered from less psychosomatic problems than those living mostly or only with one parent. Children in JPC, however, reported more psychosomatic problems than those in nuclear families, as did the children in the two other postseparation living arrangements. Our results show that children’s satisfaction with their material resources and parent–child relationships affects children’s psychosomatic health but cannot explain the differences between children in the different living arrangements.

Girls reported more psychosomatic problems than did boys while there were no age-related differences.

The pattern that children in JPC are in an intermediate position between children in nuclear families, having the least, and those in single care, having the most problems, is consistent with previous findings from our group as well as other research groups. This pattern has been established in relation to outcomes such as satisfaction with life, [18] risk behaviour, [15, 39] parent–child relationships, [11] school achievement, [19] well-being [13] and mental health. [16]

Psychosomatic symptoms are related to stress, [28] but despite the fact that two homes require adaptation to different neighbourhoods and family climates, our results show lower risks for psychosomatic symptoms for children in JPC than in single care residency. This result confirms findings from more previous small-scale studies. For example, Turunen [40] as well as Carlsund et al [14] found lower risks of stress in JPC than in single residency after controlling for family and child characteristics as well as parent–child relationships. Also, an American study showed that children in JPC had fewer stress-related illnesses and health problems than those living only with their mothers. [1] Taken together, this indicates that the potential stress from living in two homes could be outweighed by the positive effects of close contact with both parents. Although children in interviews have brought up hassles of JPC, [23–25] most children also state that close relationships with both their parents are more important. [25, 41]

It is, however, possible that the difference in psychosomatic health between children in nuclear families and JPC may, at least partly, be explained by family factors associated with the parents’ separation or divorce. Separated parents more often have psychological problems and poor economy than co-living parents and may have had relationship problems and conflicts also before the separation. [4, 42] Such factors directly affect children’s psychological health and symptom load [1, 43] and could be important for how families arrange custody and children’s housing after the split-up. [1, 9] In this study, children living with only one parent reported the least satisfaction with their relationships to their parents, followed by those living mostly with one parent. Children with JPC were slightly less satisfied with their parent relations than those in nuclear families. This pattern is in line with previous publications on children’s parental relations in different living arrangements. [4, 42]

Adding indicators of parent–child relationships and material resources to models 2–4 in the regression analyses lowered the associations between psychosomatic problems and living arrangements considerably. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a mediating effect of parent–child relationships and material resources on the relationship between psychosomatic health and living arrangements. [31, 44, 45]

Positive relationships to parents have been found to be more common in children in JPC than in single care, in particular to the fathers. [13, 32, 46] Children’s satisfaction with their material resources was included as a potential mediator since economic stress has previously been shown to be associated with psychosomatic symptoms in children [29] and is more common among children with separated parents. [4, 13] Also, these conditions reduced the differences in psychosomatic health between the living arrangements.

Girls in JPC reported more psychosomatic problems than boys, as did girls living mostly or only with one parent. The pattern of psychosomatic problems in relation to living arrangements was, however, similar for both sexes. Since girls generally report more psychosomatic ill health than boys, [26, 27] the sex differences in relation to living arrangements may possibly be explained by our outcome variable rather than an actual worse situation for girls after a parental separation. Earlier studies have reached varying results regarding gender differences after parental separations. [47, 48] In a previous study, we found no differences for boys and girls on the effects of JPC on well-being. [13] Further studies are thus needed to reveal if JPC and other postseparation arrangements have a different impact on boys and girls.

Methodological issues
We had the advantage of using a national survey with a validated outcome measure on psychosomatic problems. [35] The large sample size allows us to draw conclusions on the entire population of Swedish children aged 12 and 15 years. This is a considerable strength since previous studies have had high rates of attrition [12] or suffered from small sample sizes, preventing, for example, comparisons between JPC and single care. [14]

The national sample also ensures inclusion of families with different background characteristics. In her reviews, Nielsen [11] argues that JPC families today have less social, economic and relationship advantages compared with single care families, but there is still a risk that families with different postseparation arrangements differ in ways that affect children’s psychosomatic health. In Sweden, it is estimated that around 14% of separating parents have conflicts regarding custody and children’s housing [4] and about 2% have their custody disputes resolved in court. [49]

Despite the strength on a total population sample, our data are limited regarding contextual variables that may affect children’s health. We included measures on children’s material resources and parent relationships but lack other types of information on the families’ socioeconomic situation and the level of parents’ cooperation or conflict. Children’s reports of satisfaction with these aspects may possibly reflect their own personalities and coping strategies rather than the actual strain on the family. The lack of objective data on the families’ situations is an important limitation since such factors are associated both with children’s living arrangements and directly with their psychosomatic health. [18, 50, 51]

Another limitation is the lack of information on when the children had experienced the parental separation. Ideally, the results of this study should be confirmed by studies with a longitudinal design and access to information on psychological as well as socioeconomic family factors.

Finally, we consider our categorisation of JPC as a strength. In the survey, the alternative JPC was worded “approximately equally much with mother and father, for example one week with mother and the second week with father”, which indicates that the JPC category actually includes children who spend 50% of their time with each of the parents. Nearly 8% of the participants choose the category “living mostly with one parent”, which implies that children’s actual housing after a parental separation is not entirely black or white with respect to everyday contact with the parents. Our categorisation thus gives a more nuanced picture than studies where only the single care and JPC categories are included, [39] where JPC includes children living 30% or less with one parent [1 11] or where the JPC category even includes families with joint legal custody but primary residency with one parent. [12]

Children who share their time between the parent’s respective homes after a separation experience less psychosomatic problems than those living mostly or only with one parent. Their satisfaction with their material resources and parent–child relationships is important for their psychosomatic health but cannot explain the differences between children in different living arrangements. Longitudinal studies with information on family factors before and after the separation are needed to inform policy of children’s post-separation living arrangements.

What is already known on this subject?
The practice of joint physical custody, that is, children spending equal time in the respective homes of their separated parents, has become more frequent in Western countries over the past decade. At the same time, there has been an increase in self-reported paediatric psychosomatic symptoms. Child health experts have argued that joint physical custody imposes stress on children.

What this study adds?
In a Swedish national sample of children aged 12 and 15years, we found that children in joint physical custody suffered from less psychosomatic problems than those living mostly or only with one parent but reported more symptoms than did those in nuclear families.

Acknowledgements – The authors thank the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare for granting them permission to use the data.
Contributors – MBe conceived the study, participated in the design and drafted the manuscript. BM provided expertise regarding the data source, interpretation of the data and the statistical analysis. EF participated in the design of the study and interpretation of the data. MB provided expertise regarding demography and the data source and participated in the interpretation of the data. PAG provided expertise regarding child psychiatry and participated in the interpretation of the data. AH participated in the design of the study, provided expertise regarding the data source, performed the statistical analyses and interpretation of the data and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding – This study was funded by Länsförsäkringsbolagens Forskningsfond.
Competing interests – None.
Ethics approval – Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Provenance and peer review – Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Open Access – This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

    1 Melli M, Brown PR. Exploring a new family form––the shared time family. Int J Law Policy Fam 2008;22:231–69.
    2 Spruijt E, Duindam V. Joint physical custody in The Netherlands and the well-being of children. J Divorce Remarriage 2010;51:65–82.
    3 Heide Ottosen M. Samvaer og borns trivsel [Joint custody and children’s well-being]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Social Studies Institute, 2004.
    4 Swedish board of health and welfare. Family law and the child in custody disputes (in Swedish). Stockholm, Sweden, 2011.
    5 Juby HLBC, Marcil-Gratton N. Sharing roles, sharing custody? Couples’ characteristics and children’s living arrangements at separation. J Marriage Fam 2005;67:157–72.
    6 Sundström M. Managing work and children: part-time work and the family cycle of Swedish women. In: Blossfeld HP, Hakim C. eds. Between equalization and marginalization. Women working part-time in Europe and the United States of America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997:272–88.
    7 Fehlberg B, Smyth B, Maclean M, et al. Legislating for shared time parenting after separation: a research review. Int J Law Policy Fam 2011;25:318–37.
    8 Fehlberg B, Smyth B, Mclean M, & Roberts C & University of Oxford. Dept. of Social Policy and Social Intervention (2011). Caring for children after parental separation: would legislation for shared parenting time help children? University of Oxford, Dept. of Social Policy and Intervention, Oxford.
    9 Sodermans AK, Matthijs K, Swicegood G. Characteristics of joint physical custody families in Flanders. Demogr Res 2013;28:821–48.
    10 Kaspiew R. Cashmore J. Parkinson P, et al. Shared care parenting arrangements since the 2006 Family Law Reforms: report to the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. University of New South Wales. Social Policy Research Centre, 2010:18–52.
    11 Nielsen L. Shared residential custody: review of the research (part II of II). Am J Fam Law 2013;27:61–71.
    12 Bauserman R. Child adjustment in joint-custody versus sole-custody arrangements: a meta-analytic review. J Fam Psychol 2002;16:91–102.
    13 Bergström M, Modin B, Fransson E, et al. Living in two homes––a Swedish national survey of wellbeing in 12 and 15-year-olds with joint physical custody. BMC Public Health 2013;13:868.
    14 Carlsund Å, Eriksson U, Sellström E. Shared physical custody after family split-up: implications for health and well-being in Swedish schoolchildren. Acta Paediatr 2012;102:318–23.
    15 Jablonska B, Lindberg L. Risk behaviours, victimisation and mental distress among adolescents in different family structures. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2007;42:656–63.
    16 Bergström M, Fransson, E, Hjern, A, et al. Mental health in Swedish children living in joint physical custody and their parents’ life satisfaction: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Psychol 2014;55:433–9.
    17 Amato PR, Soblowski JM. The effects of divorce and marital discord on adult children’s psychological well-being. Am Sociol Rev 2001;66:900–21.
    18 Bjarnason T, Bendtsen P, Arnarsson A, et al. Life satisfaction among children in different family structures: a comparative study of 36 western societies. Child Soc 2012;26:51–62.
    19 Breivik K, Olweus D. Adolescent’s adjustment in four post-divorce family structures. J Divorce Remarriage 2006;44:99–124.
    20 McIntosh J, Smyth B, Wells Y, et al. Post-separation parenting arrangements and developmental outcomes for infants and children. Collected reports. Victoria, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2010.
    21 Warshak RA. Social science and parenting plans for young children: a consensus report. Psychol Public Policy Law 2014;20:46–67.
    22 Gilmore S. Contact/shared residence and child well-being: research evidence and its implications for legal decision-making. Int J Law Policy Fam 2006;20:344–65.
    23 Cashmore J, Parkinson, P, Weston R, et al. Shared care parenting arrangements since the 2006 Family Law Reforms: report to the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. Social Policy Research Centre. University of New South Wales, 2010.
    24 Haugen GMD. Children’s perspectives on everyday experiences of shared residence: time, emotions and agency dilemmas. Child Soc 2010;24:112–22.
    25 Smart C, Neale B, Wade A. The changing experience of childhood: families and divorce. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
    26 Danielsson M. Skolbarns hälsovanor (The Swedish version of the WHO HSBC study]. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Public Health Institute, 2003.
    27 Karvonen S, Vikat A, Rimpela M. The role of school context in the increase in young people’s health complaints in Finland. J Adolesc 2005;28:1–16.
    28 Alfvén G, Östberg V, Hjern A. Stressor, perceived stress and recurrent pain in Swedish schoolchildren. J Psychosom Res 2008;65:381–7.
    29 Östberg V, Alfvén G, Hjern A. Living conditions and psychosomatic complaints in Swedish schoolchildren. Acta Paediatr 2006;95:929–93.
    30 Bergh D, Hagqvist C, Starrin B. Social relations in school and psychosomatic health among Swedish adolescents––the role of academic orientation. Eur J Public Health 2010;21:699–704.
    31 Hjern A, Alfvén G, Östberg V. School stressors, psychological complaints and psychosomatic pain. Acta Paediatr 2008;97:112–17.
    32 Låftman S, Bergström M, Modin B, et al. Joint physical custody, parental emotional support and subjective health: a large-scale study of adolescents in Stockholm, Sweden. Scand J Public Health 2014;42:456–62.
    33 McEwan B. Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain. Physiol Rev 2007;87:873–904.
    34 The Swedish Public Health Institute. Survey of mental health among school children. Secondary Survey of mental health among school children, 2011.
    35 Hagquist C. Psychometric properties of the PsychoSomatic Problems scale: a Rasch analysis on adolescent data. Soc Indicators Res 2008;86:511–23.
    36 Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
    37 The KIDSCREEN Group Europe. The KIDSCREEN Questionnaires. Handbook. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers, 2006.
    38 Ravens-Sieberer U, Gosch A, Rajmil L, et al. The quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Value Health 2008;11:645–58.
    39 Carlsund A, Eriksson U, Löfstedt P, et al. Risk behaviour in Swedish adolescents: is shared physical custody after divorce a risk or a protective factor? Eur J Public Health 2013;23:3–8.
    40 Turunen J. Shared physical custody and children’s experience of stress. Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America. New Orleans, USA: The Population Association of America, 2013.
    41 Skjørten K, Barlindhaug R, Lidén H. Delt bosted for barn. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk, 2007.
    42 Gähler M. Life after divorce. Stockholm University, 1998.
    43 Amato PR. Children’s adjustment to divorce: theories, hypotheses and empirical support. J Marriage Fam 1993;55:23–38.
    44 Due P, Lynch J, Holstein B, et al. Socioeconomic health inequalities among a nationally representative sample of Danish adolescents: the role of different types of social relations. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:692–8.
    45 Fabricius W, Luecken L. Postdivorce living arrangements, parent conflict, and long-term physical health correlates for children of divorce. J Fam Psychol 2007;21:195–205.
    46 Bjarnason T, Arnarsson Arsaell M. Joint physical custody and communication with parents: a cross-national study of children in 36 western countries. J Comp Fam Stud 2011;42:871–91.
    47 Nielsen L. Divorced Fathers and Their Daughters: A Review of Recent Research. J Divorce Remarriage 2011;52:77–93.
    48 Spruijt EDV. Problem behavior of boys and young men after parental divorce in the Netherlands. J Divorce Remarriage 2005;43:141–56.
    49 Rejmer A. Vårdnadstvister. En rättssociologisk studie av tingsrätts funktion vid handläggning av vårdnadstvister med utgångspunkt från barnets bästa. (In Swedish). Lunds Universitet, 2003.
    50 Kelly JB, Emery RE. Children’s adjustment following divorce: risk and resilience perspectives. Fam Relations 2003;52:352–62.
    51 Lansford JE. Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspect Psychol Sci 2009;4:140–52.

Bergström M, et al. J Epidemiol Community Health 2015;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-205058 1
Research report

JECH Online First, published on April 28, 2015 as 10.1136/jech-2014-205058
Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2015. Produced by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd under licence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Fatherless Society: Literature- and Fieldstudy (Barbara Kleinschuster-Moser, 2015)


fatherlessA DIPLOMA THESIS by Barbara Kleinschuster- Moser.

 Die vaterlose Gesellschaft: Literatur- und Feldstudie (PDF-download, Barbara Kleinschuster-Moser, Diplomarbeit, 09.02.2015)

This German language diploma thesis was produced in Austria during an instruction course to become a qualified social education worker. Following the book of Matthias Matussek I chose the title “Die vaterlose Gesellschaft” (The fatherless society).

Regarding my person: I am 57 of age and in my main profession I am a chartered accountant. I produced this thesis out of my personal interest, last but not least for a better understanding of the past of my family.

My husband and I are both married the second time, whilst I am childless my husband is father of two children (at present 25 and 27 years of age). During the first four years of our mutual life I had to notice how he struggled to realize a normal contact arrangement with his children. It was a suffering for all of us, for him, the children and for me as a dedicated stepmother as well. After four years he succeeded in obtaining the sole custody, a very rare occurrence in Austria. Later – in adulthood – his (meanwhile obviously my) children stated amongst other comments they would have never succeeded in finishing school (not to talk about their university career) if they would have stayed with their mother any longer. Too extreme the psychological stress was a daily burden, the backlash which was part of the intention and strategy of the mother to destroy their father financially and in his personality as well.

The diploma thesis is split into two sections:

  1. A review of the specialist literature of the late 20th and the 21st century until today
  2. A survey of fathers who maintain (or have maintained) contact with their children under difficult conditions

By relevant scientific investigations since World War II the negative impact of a fatherless education of minors is evident and no longer a matter of interpretation. Nevertheless these scientific results do not find their way into current judicature which still privileges the mother in case of divorce. In this “politically tinted” environment which is cultivated preferably by left-wing, green political parties and feminist movements it is difficult if not impossible at all to achieve the interests of minors and their fathers respectively.

The survey of affected fathers from different countries (Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Germany, The Netherlands, The UK and Australia) was done following the method of the “self administered survey”.

By initial approach I also tried to get into contact with at least some mothers and children involved. This approach was not productive as the children were in most cases too young, the mothers (all of them) blocked my attempt of contact as apparently they did not want to be disturbed in “their world”.

It was noticeable how homogeneous the psychological strain was for fathers all across the survey. Fathers with the willingness for engagement with their children today in 2015 still feel forsaken by politics, legislative, judiciary and welfare offices and being exposed to the arbitrariness of mothers.

Barbara Kleinschuster-Moser
February 2015
Graz, Austria

Posted in Barbara Kleinschuster-Moser | Leave a comment

New member from Denmark joined PEF on 26 Nov 2014

FB logo

Name: “Foreningen Far til støtte for børn og forældre” (english – “Fathers’ association in support of children and parents”)
Purpose: to work for the children as far as possible can have close contact with both parents and both parents can retain influence on their children’s upbringing – also when the parents do not live together. Furthermore, to ensure children’s and parents’ rights in society by parents assimilated through legislation, judicial and law administration practice, and as far as possible to support relevant research in children’s and family area.
General messages from the organization:
A group, where parents can help each other – it’s a User to User group:
Twitter account:
Adress: Pasteursvej 2, 1799 København V, Denmark
Phone number: 72 40 66 88
Date of registration: 1977 Sep. 24

Posted in Member Organisations | Leave a comment

International Men’s Day, Wednesday 19 November 2014

landscape_screen shot_imd_2013

International Men’s Day, Wednesday 19 November 2014

Working Together for Men and Boys, Fathers and Sons: Positive Male Role Models

Objectives of International Men’s Day include a focus on men’s and boy’s health, improving gender relations, promoting gender equality, and highlighting positive male role models. It is an occasion for men to celebrate their achievements and contributions, in particular their contributions to community, family, marriage, and child care while highlighting the discrimination against them.

The November IMD is a significant date as it interfaces the popular ‘Movember’ charity event and also with Universal Children’s Day on Nov 20 with which IMD forms a 48 hour celebration of men and children respectively, and of the special relationships they share.

The ability to sacrifice your needs on behalf of others is fundamental to manhood, as is honour. Manhood rites of passage the world over recognise the importance of sacrifice in the development of Manhood.

Men make sacrifices everyday in their place of work, in their role as husbands and fathers, for their families, for their friends, for their communities and for their nation. International Men’s Day is an opportunity for people everywhere of goodwill to appreciate and celebrate the men in their lives and the contribution they make to society for the greater good of all.

Methods of commemorating International Men’s Day have included public seminars, conferences, festivals and fundraisers, classroom activities at schools, radio and television programs, Church observances, and peaceful displays and marches. The manner of observing this annual day is optional; any organizations are welcome to host their own events and any appropriate forums can be used. This year the theme is Positive Male Role Models. Should you want to choose another theme for your particular celebration you are quite at liberty to do so.

International Men’s Day is celebrated in over 60 countries of the world. Too many to list. Join us on November 19 in celebrating the contribution men and boys make to those around them, to their family and friends, their work place and the community, the nations and the world.

imd2011-poster-a4-rgb-747kbDads4Kids is honoured to host the Men’s Day website and we invite you to join the global celebrations. Anyone is welcome to quote material from this website (attribution to this website is required), as well as free and open use of our logo and access to new posters in the Resource Section.

Please feel free to download and use our posters and logos at:
* Logos:
* Posters:

Posted in International Men's Day | 7 Comments

EU Cross-Border Custody Helpline

2690656718_3f548236b0_zThe Platform for European Fathers (PEF) starts a new information and advice service for European parents struggling with EU cross-border custody and access issues.

When your partner has left you and has taken the children without your consent to another EU country, and you are desperate and searching for information on what you can possibly do, then also have a look at our ‘Platform for European Fathers’ (PEF) newly opened website, with a Facebook discussion group and a Facebook information page with information on cross-border custody and access issues within the EU and between EU countries.

For more information on the EU Cross-Border Custody Helpline see:

  1. Facebook helpline discussion group:
  2. Facebook information page:
  3. Website:

Support by 24 organisations from 15 EU countries:

24 national member parent organisations of PEF from 15 EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) are offering you their national expertise, information and support:

  1. Austria – Children’s Feelings (Kindergefuehle)
  2. Austria – Go Daddy ! (Papa gibt Gas)
  3. Austria – Fathers without Rights (Väter ohne Rechte)
  4. Austria – In the name of parental responsibility (In Namen Elterliche Verantwortung – INEV)
  5. Belgium – Fatherinstitute (Vaderinstituut)
  6. Belgium – SOS Papa Belgique
  7. Bulgaria – Union of Fathers (Съюз на бащите в България)
  8. France – Association Father, Child, Mother (Père Enfant Mère)
  9. France – SOS Papa Nord-Picardie
  10. Germany – Fathers on the Brink for Children (Väter Aufbruch für Kinder – VAfK)
  11. Greece – Sygapa, Father’s and Men’s Dignity
  12. Hungary – Association of Divorced Fathers (Elvált Apák Érdekvédelmi Egyesülete – EAÉE)
  13. Iceland – Association for Equal Parenting (Félag um foreldrajafnrétti)
  14. Ireland – Parental Equality Ireland (PEI)
  15. Ireland – Mens Support Groups of Ireland (MSGI) – The National Umbrella Organisation
  16. Lithuania – Association Against Parental Alienation (Asociacijos Prieš Tėvų Atstūmimą – APTA)
  17. Netherlands – Father Knowledge Centre (Vader Kennis Centrum – VKC)
  18. Portugal – Parental equality and children’s rights (Igualdade Parental e Direito dos Filhos)
  19. Spain – Federal Union of Associations for Equal Parenting (Union Estatal de Federaciones y Asociaciones por la Custodia Compartida)
  20. Spain – Association of Victims of Family Violence Laws (Asociación Víctimas Ley Violencia Género Madrid – GenMad)
  21. Switzerland – Responsibly Raising Fathers and Mothers (Verantwortungsvoll erziehende Väter und Mütter – VeV)
  22. Switzerland – Second wives and families (Donna2)
  23. United Kingdom – Men’s Aid
  24. United Kingdom – Fatherhood Institute
Posted in EU Cross-Border Custody, Helpline, PEF, Platform for European Fathers | 1 Comment

EU Fundamental Rights questions for Eurocommisioner Frans Timmermans

Kandidaat Eurocommissaris Frans Timmermans, premier Mark Rutte, bondskanselier Angela Merkel, president Porosjenko en premier Thorning-Schmidt lopen elkaar tegen het lijf op de Europese Top van 4 september 2014.

Kandidaat Eurocommissaris Frans Timmermans, premier Mark Rutte, bondskanselier Angela Merkel, president Porosjenko en premier Thorning-Schmidt lopen elkaar tegen het lijf op de Europese Top van 4 september 2014.

Vraag aan Nederlandse en Belgische MEP’s voor hoorzitting met kandidaat eurocommissaris Frans Timmermans op 7 oktober 2014:
Download hier de PDF

Utrecht, Mol, 4 oktober 2014

Betreft: Vraag m.b.t. de handhaving van het Handvest van de grondrechten (m.n. Art. 24, Clause 3) voor de hoorzitting met Frans Timmermans op 7 oktober a.s.

Beste Nederlandse en Belgische Leden van het Europees Parlement,

Kandidaat eurocommissaris Frans Timmermans zal op 7 oktober een toespraak houden met mogelijkheid tot het stellen van vragen. De naleving van de rechtstaat en het Handvest van de grondrechten in alle activiteiten van de Commissie zal tot zijn bevoegdheden behoren. Wat al jaren onder de radar is gebleven zijn de massale schendingen van het recht op gezinsleven en recht op frequent en persoonlijk contact van kinderen met hun gescheiden ouders (1).

In de brief van woensdag, 29 januari 2014 aan het Platform voor Europese Vaders is namens de vice-president van het Europees Parlement Roberta Angelilli aangegeven: “Indeed, in the event of separation or divorce, what Article 24 states should mean a balanced and continuing relationship for the child with both parents.” (2)

De cijfers in België en Nederland zijn hallucinant en schokkend te noemen. Ongeveer 20% van de Nederlandse en Belgische scheidingskinderen verliest alle contact met hun vader.(3) (4)

In zowat alle landen van de EU is de handhaving van het Handvest van de grondrechten ineffectief. Welke zijn de doelstellingen van Frans Timmermans op dit terrein en hoe gaat hij deze bereiken?

Met vriendelijke groet,

Peter Tromp, voorzitter Stichting Vader Kennis Centrum Nederland, secretaris generaal Platform voor Europese Vaders (PEF)
Jan Van Baelen, coördinator, Vaderinstituut vzw België

(1) Handvest van de grondrechten, Art. 24, Clause 3:
(2) Brief namens Roberta Angelilli aan het Platform voor Europese Vaders (PEF) d.d. 29/01/2014:
(3) Voor het aantal Nederlandse kinderen dat na scheiding contact met de vader verliest zie paragraaf ‘Kwart kinderen geen contact meer met vader “ uit het persbericht “Een op de zes kinderen maakt echtscheiding mee” van het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS), PB01-022 31 januari 2001, :: Quote: “Tachtig procent van de kinderen blijft na echtscheiding bij de moeder. Een kwart van alle echtscheidingskinderen heeft in de jaren na de scheiding geen contact meer met de vader.”
(4) Voor het aantal Belgische kinderen dat na scheiding contact met de vader verliest zie Tabel 7 op pagina’s 20 en 21 van het ‘Het Leuvens Adolescenten- en Gezinnenonderzoek 2009 – 2010; Onderzoeksrapport’; Prof. Dr. Koen Matthijs e.a., CeSO/GB/2011-1,

Peter Tromp
Voorzitter Vader Kennis Centrum (VKC)
Tel. 030.2383636

Jan Van Baelen
Coördinator Vaderinstituut vzw.

September 2014 - Voorgestelde Europese Commissie onder presidentschap van Jean-Claude Juncker

September 2014 – Voorgestelde Europese Commissie onder presidentschap van Jean-Claude Juncker

Posted in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Eurocommisaris, European Parliament, Europees Parlement, Europese Commissie, Frans Timmermans, Handvest van de Europese Grondrechten, Roberta Angelilli, Vice-President of the European Parliament | Tagged | Leave a comment

[Bulgaria/Romania] Cross-border custody case of Bulgarian father Sevdalin Chandarov and daughter Jasmina

Father protest monday morning September 29, 2014 (at 9:30 hours) in Sofia at the Bulgarian Supreme Judicial Council building (at Ul. Exarch Joseph 12)
Bulgaria, Press Release Association “Childhood And Dad”
Phone: 088 8604515
Contact Person: Pancho Malezanov Chairman of the association “Childhood and dad

The Bulgarian association “Childhood and daddy” calls on all responsible parents who are not indifferent to their rights issue of our children to stand with posters in hands on September 29 at 9:30 am. Before the Supreme Judicial Council of Bulgaria at the following address: Exarch Joseph 12 in Sofia, Bulgaria < Bulgarian website of the Supreme Judicial Council of Bulgaria:

– TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN! Because we take the fruits of our fathers unreasonable judgments and grotesque behavior of social workers. This horror is happening today in the twenty-first century version reminiscent blood tax associated with the darkest events from the time of Turkish occupation and slavery.

Come to this public event with father Sevdalin Chandarov of the Bulgarian city of Nedelino who appears emanation of total denial of his paternity and discrimination against men as good parents. There is neglect, marginalization and humiliation of the father of little Jasmina, who for the past five years was the caring parent and only important factor for the normal psychophysiological and full development of his child; but as a typical demonstration of arrogant, reckless and unsanctioned by the legal authorities father keeping SAM wonderful my child, who is now being excluded from his daughter and crushed – all at the cost of the devastation of the present and future of his own daughter. The girl was given to the mother to live in Calarasi, Romania – without evaluating and taking into account the best interest of the child who grew up and is grounded in Bulgaria, has her friends, familyand school in Bulgaria and is fully accustomed to the Bulgarian living conditions. of development. A cultural shock awaits Jasmina – totally detached from the environment to which she is accustomed, the trusted circle of relatives and friends, school … while she does not understand or speak the Romanian language. The life of a Bulgarian child will be overturned as a result of negligent, discriminatory and anti-Bulgarian judgment. In this severe demographic situation, the Bulgarian court propels our children abroad. And the case is not an isolated one or unique. Also another father suffers after a court ruling allowing the mother to take their child of three months into the Republic of Belarus – and is not returned within the specified period. Who is responsible for these irresponsible judgments? Who benefits from them? Who now will return the child to its home country?

Moving on to active action! On September 29th at 9:30 pm we will stand together in front of the Bulgarian Supreme Judicial Council address: Ul. Exarch Joseph 12, Sofia
with posters in hands – TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!

Pancho Malezanov: 27 september 2014

Bulgarian language Press Release:

Съобщение за медиите
Сдружение „Детство И с тати“

Телефон: 088 8604515

Лице за контакт:

Панчо Малезанов-председател на сдружение ‘Детство и с тати

Сдружение „Детство и с тати” призовава всички отговорни родители, на които не им е безразлична темата за правата на децата ни да застанем с плакати в ръце, на 29 септември в 9:30 ч. пред администрацията на Висшия съдебен съвет на адрес: Ул. Екзарх Йосиф 12

– В ЗАЩИТА НА НАШИТЕ ДЕЦА! Защото рожбите ни се отнемат от нас бащите им с необосновани съдебни решения, и с гротескно поведение на социални служители. Този ужас се случва днес, през ХХІ век във вариант, напомнящ кръвният данък, свързван с най-мрачните събития от времето на туркото робство.

Добилият популярност случай с татко Севдалин от Неделино се явява еманация на тоталното отричане на бащинството у нас и дискриминирането на мъжа като пълноценен родител. Налице е неглижиране, маргинализиране и унизяване на таткото на малката Жасмина, като единствен важен фактор(през изминалите пет години) за нормалното и пълноценно психофизиологично развитие на детето си; типична демонстрация на надменно, безотговорно и несанкционирано отношение на съдебни власти към баща, отглеждащ САМ прекрасно рожбата си, който сега е смачкан – с цената на опустошаването на настоящето и бъдещето на собствената му дъщеря. Момиченцето е присъдено на майката, за да живее в Кълъраш, Румъния – без прогноза и оценка за развитието му. Не са взети под внимание битовите условия там, културният шок, който очаква Жасмина – тотално откъсната от средата, с която е привикнала, доверения кръг от роднини, близки, приятелки, училище…, а тя не разбира румънски език. Животът на едно българче ще бъде преобърнат в резултат на нехайно, дискриминационно и анти-българско съдебно решение. В настоящата тежка демографска ситуация, българският съд прокужда наши деца в чужбина. Случаят не е изолиран, нито единствен. Друг татко (от Чирпан) страда след решение на съда, допуснал майката да изведе детето им за три месеца в Беларус – и не е върнато в определения срок. Кой носи отговорност за тези безотговорни съдебни решения? Кой се възползва от тях? Кой сега ще върне детето в Родината?

Преминаваме към активни действия! На 29-ти септември в 9:30 ч ще застанем заедно пред администрацията на Висшия съдебен съвет на адрес: Ул. Екзарх Йосиф 12

с плакати в ръце – В ЗАЩИТА НА НАШИТЕ ДЕЦА!

Hungerstrike by Bulgarian father Sevdalin Chandarov against unjustified and discriminative Bulgarian court custody order for his daughter Jasmina

Interview with Bulgarian father Sevdalin Chandarov on Bulgarian TV Channel 3 on 19 september 2014 (from 12:40 -32:20 min. onwards)
▶ Студио 3 (следобед) – 19.09.2014 Част 4
Source: YouTube – Канал 3 TV – 19.09.2014

Bulgarian father starves himself to death in hungerstrike until Bulgarian court changes unfair custody-change order
Bulgaria – – Share – 9/16/2014 09:59; 24 hours online; 1231; 1;

Photo: Archive – A father of the Bulgarian city of Nedelino, who cared five years alone for his daughter, began a hunger strike in protest against a decision of Kardzhali district court – information from Darik.

Magistrates awarded the custody of the child to the former wive, who is a Romanian citizen, of Sevdalin Chandarov.

Daughter Jasmina barely knows her mother. Two-thirds of the child’s life have gone by with her father. For five years during her stay with her father she heard her mother only on the phone and then only rarely.

5 years ago the mother of Jasmina – Romanian citizen Veronica Petcu, moved to Spain just as the two-year-old daughter was admitted to the hospital.

A year and a half later, the young woman suddenly wanted a divorce from her Bulgarian husband and ceased all contact with her daughter, said bTV.

Now the mother of seven-year old Jasmina suddenly gets awarded custody while this has previously been awarded to the father by the Zlatograd District Court. Following the decision of Kardzhalimen magistrates Sevdalin Chandarov began a hunger strike. Jasmine’s father casts heavy doubt on the fairness of the judicial system.

According to social workers Jasmina is very fond of her father and was estranged from her mother caused by her voluntary absence from the child’s life. The devastated father intends to declare indefinite civil disobedience in front of the Supreme Judicial Council in the capital.

Father began a hunger strike after he took the child – I tried to bribe the judge with potatoes, beef and yogurt
Blitz News – Kardzhali, Bulgaria – Posted 11 September. 2014, 12:10 | Updated: Sept 11. 2014, 12:10

Photos: 2

The man decided to starve because paternity case. Magistrates granted custody of 8-year-old daughter Jasmine to her mother – Andrina Veroniku. Romanian citizen living in the town of Calarasi and in the words of the mountaineers after divorce never came to see the child. “Even when I won the case in Zlatograd District Court, she had the right to visit Zhasi, take her for a month, but not once did, reports Only time and pay child support in the amount of 100 lev. At other times constantly bothered me for money sending SMS-es. The child knows her. The last time I saw a case in Kardzhali and immediately hid behind me. When I heard the decision of the court, raised blood pressure. They took me to the Emergency in Nedelino where I participated systems. Nothing said the child, but most likely it is understood. Will starve two days outside the courthouse in Kardzhali. On Monday I will send Zhasi school and go on Tuesday in Sofia, where he will protest to the Supreme Judicial Council. Received assurance from other fathers who will come to support me. Will appeal to the Supreme Court, “said Chandarov.

While talking, his phone rings, it turns out his daughter. “Daddy, grandma ate meat. Listen to her to know you when you come back? “Asked the child trembling Sevdalin.

“The child is learning excellent. It does not speak a word of Romanian. How will you live there? We found out that my ex-wife lives with another man, who has three children. According to the information at my disposal Andrina wait another child. All the expertise of social workers are in my favor. Even in the courtroom could not bring a bus witnesses to confirm how to care for the child. In the course of my case said that there was no problem Zhasi was small, can adapt and learn Romanian “said Sevdalin.

“I am sure that magistrates in Kardzhali know those from Smolyan. After my initial protests, they now give it back by supporting the decision of the District Court in Smolyan. I wanted to try one of the magistrates, who led one of the cases in Kardzhali. I took the parents of Judge potatoes, beef and yogurt. They received them. I wanted to see if they can succumb to bribes. I just wanted to have fair play, “reveals Sevdalin. / Turbo

Sevdalin Chandarov fights for his daughter. Its class: She is painfully fond of him
Bulgaria – – 14/2/2014

Photo: BTV – Sevdalin Chandarov e devoted father who himself has raised his child and who was on the brink of despair because of inability to fight for custody of 6-year-old daughter.

Days ago Zlatograd District Court awarded custody of Sevdalin Chandarov. His story is about to become a legal precedent, said bTV.

Objectives 4 years Sevdalin caregivers alone. His wife Veronica Petcu left him and went abroad. A few months ago the court give her custody. According to the child’s personal physician and psychologist 6-year-old Jasmine is very fond of her father.

“Failure have several meetings with the child, which shows that she does not wish to meet with the mother. In my questions: “What is the reason?” – “Well, it speaks for gifts …” Strong affection manifested by the relatives of his father. And I can tell – painful affection for his father, just for talking, “says psychologist R. Stoyanova from the Social Support Centre in the town of Nedelino.

“Well, yes, the child was with bilateral pneumonia. Then the father went to the ward to treat the child. Mother went to Spain. She never made a call to ask how the child, okay, sturdy, you sick, you care for her, feed her, bathe her, things like that, “explained the GP of Jasmine nedelino Dr. Milka Lubomirova.

A few days ago new circumstances completely upended the custody case. District Court ordered Zlatograd 6-year-old Jasmine to stay in Bulgaria with her father. The reason is the drastic differences between the claims of the mother and inspection of social services in the Romanian town Calarasi.

“From there, it was confirmed that the mother had lied, that is located in the Republic of Romania and had gone with a contract to work in Spain,” added the father of Jasmine Sevdalin Chandarov.

According to the social report of the Romanian social services seven-member family of Veronica Petcu live in apartment, not in the bedroom, as it claims. “One bedroom apartment, home to the mother and father of my ex-wife, her two sisters and their spouses and one of their grandchild,” added the father.

News of stay of Jasmine in Nedelino met with joy and relief in the few Muslim town. Most are excited Jasmina her dad. “I love my dad and I do not want nobody, ‘the girl.

“We are very excited and happy developments for the benefit of our fellow citizen because our joy comes from the fact that though he is the father … And rarely fathers go to protect their children – show such concern for the child who is also an example for others in our city, “said Rumen Chafadarov sagrazhdaninat them.

“I am happy because for the first time in Bulgaria is going to win a case, and it father! Glad you stuck in Bulgaria Bulgarian child to learn and develop. I am proud that the child remains in my class because she is doing great things to be doing in school, “said the head of the class and Jasmine R. Karaivanova.

A case can be appealed to the Smolyan District Court. Albeit temporary, victory Sevdalin Chandarov gives hope to many Bulgarian fathers, they will not be discriminated against by Bulgarian courts by gender.

Court sent the girl to her mother, who gave him before 4 godiniBashta ready to indefinite hunger strike to preserve their parental pravaBashta began a hunger strike in Smolyan Romanian take his child

Father is ready for indefinite hunger strike to preserve their parental rights
Bulgaria – – Share 16/09/2013 9:41; 24 hours online; 2088; 0;

Sevdalin and Jasmine Photo: A scene from the story of bTV

Man raising his daughter alone four years, until one day he received a letter from the child’s mother, in which she claimed the custody, said bTV. Sevdalin Chandarov ready to declare an indefinite hunger strike to retain the right to see and care for 6-year-old Jasmine.

This is not the first hunger strike, her father. See the story HERE.

“The father is very caring. Just some mothers can learn from it, “says Dr. Milka Lubomirova, doctor of Jasmine in the city Nedelino. Girl barely knew her mother, who worked for years in Spain. She even does not know that she is likely be sent to his mother, who is a Romanian citizen.

Sevdalin Chandarov and Adriana Petcu-Veronica are introduced 8 years ago in Spain, where both are gurbet. After a year and a half Sevdalin returns home to Nedelino. Adriana, Veronica decides to follow him and they married, in Bulgaria. In 2007, Jasmine was born. 2009, however, is detrimental to the family, because Adriana, Veronica wants to return to Spain.

“Basically here from the city, many women work in Spain and a friend of hers curl to go there, said it was very nice there – to work on a seasonal strawberries. I was strongly against, “said the man. First year mother sent money to her family in Bulgaria, but after the second year her behavior changed dramatically.

“From now estranged. Feelings were strange. As I started to kiss her, she pulled my hands, “recalls Sevdalin. Husband so suddenly receives divorce papers. Several months later Sevdalin understands that its long half life partner with a fellow in Spain.

“For two years Adriana never called to ask how her daughter was doing in Nedelino” says Sevdalin more.

Two instances of the Bulgarian court refuses to listen to the arguments of the social workers and the GP of Jasmina whereby Sevdalin perfect parent, and judge custody of the mother, who now lives in Spain.

The last hope of the father is the Supreme Court. The local “Child Protection” refused to comment on the grounds that they are very busy.

Sevdalin Chandarov fights for his daughter. Its class: She is painfully fond of him

Posted in Bulgaria, Family court, Family law, Jasmina Chandarov, Sevdalin Chandarov | Tagged | 1 Comment