Joint Custody Shared Physical Custody in Switzerland Martin

Joint Custody & Shared Physical Custody in Switzerland Martin Widrig RECHTSWISSENSCHAFTLICHE FAKULTÄT / Universität Freiburg Lehrstuhl für XXX

Joint Custody & Shared Physical Custody in Switzerland RECHTSWISSENSCHAFTLICHE FAKULTÄT / Universität Freiburg Lehrstuhl für XXX Table of Contents A. Insight into Switzerland B. Divorce Behaviour C. Share of Parental Tasks D. Custody E. Shared Physical Custody F. Conclusion 2

A. Insight into Switzerland (1) § Population: 8 Million (2013) § Federation: 26 Cantons § 4 Languages/Cultures: German (65. 6%) French (22. 8%) Italian (8. 4%) Romanch (0. 6%) § Aging population: < 20 : 20 – 39 : 40 – 64 : > 65 : 20% 27% 36% 17% (in 1900: 41%) 3

A. Insight into Switzerland (2) Births Switzerland OECDaverage Remarks Birth-rate 1. 50 1. 74 Fig. 1 Births/year 80’ 000 Illegitimate children 16. 2% 33. 4% Fig. 2 4

A. Insight into Switzerland (3) Households with. . . Switzerland OECDaverage No children 74. 1% 61% Children 25. 9% 39% • One 10. 3 17. 5 • Two 12. 2 15. 2 • Three & more 3. 4 6. 3 Remarks Fig. 3 5

A. Insight into Switzerland (4) Households with Children living with Switzerland OECDaverage both parents 84. 7 83. 8 one parent 15. 2 14. 9 Fig. 4 6

A. Insight into Switzerland (5) Public Spending % of GDP France 3. 67 UK 3. 56 OECD-average 2. 19 Switzerland 1. 4 Fig. 5 7

A. Switzerland, an Overview (6) Poverty Risk Avg. Sole parent Working Switzerland 9. 4 OECDaverage 12. 7 Not working Two parents No worker 21. 6 61. 4 One worker Two workers 7. 6 21. 3 49. 4 17. 3 3. 9 Fig. 6 and 7 8

B. Divorce Behavior (1) 9

B. Divorce Behavior (2) § Increasing number of divorces: 2010 54. 4% (22’ 081) 1970 15. 4% § Duration of marriage: 14. 5 years § Requested by husband: in 37% § Divorces involving children: Switzerland OECD-average 45. 1% 55. 9% 10

B. Divorce Behavior (3) Number of Children concerned Year Children concerned 2010 15’ 374 2009 13’ 789 2008 14’ 141 11

B. Divorce Behavior (4) Age of Children concerned Year Children concerned 0 -4 years 5 -9 years 10 -14 years 15 years + 2010 15’ 374 9% 31% 36% 25% 2009 13’ 789 8 31 36 25 2008 14’ 141 8 31 36 25 Total 67% Ideal age for Shared Physical Custody 12

C. Share of Parental Tasks (1) Overview § Dual-earner families § Most Mothers work, even (76%) § when child < 3 years (58%, OECD: 52%) § with > 2 children (58%, OECD: 44%) § Many women work part-time (47%, OECD: 22%) § Most Fathers work full time (90%) § Mothers do most house and family work Fig. 8 - 11 13

C. Share of Parental Tasks (2) Age youngest Child Task Mother (hrs. ) Father (hrs. ) 0 -6 years House & Family 55. 6 29. 4 35% Job 11. 8 40. 1 Total 67. 4 69. 5 House & Family 44. 4 22. 2 33% Job 16. 7 40. 3 Total 61. 1 62. 5 7 -14 years Fig. 12 14

C. Share of Parental Tasks (3) Child Related Family Work Hours Mother 20. 5 Father 12. 2 (37%) Fathers are important Attachment Figures 15

D. Custody (1) Legal situation January 1, 2000 January 1, 2014 Married Parents Joint Custody Divorced Parents Sole Custody (1988) • Sole Custody • Joint Custody (consent) • Joint Custody • Sole Custody (exception) Unmarried Parents Sole Custody • Sole Custody • Joint Custody (consent + convention) • Sole Custody • Joint Custody (Consent or on request) 16

D. Custody (2) Attribution of Custody Year Mother Joint Custody Father 2010 50. 6% 45. 5% 3. 8% 2009 55. 9 39. 4 4. 5% 2008 58. 4 36. 3 4. 8% 2006 64. 7 29. 0 6. 0% 2003 68. 1 25. 8 5. 7% 2000 78. 5 14. 6 6. 4% 17

D. Custody (3) Regional Differences in attribution of Custody Canton Mother Joint Custody Father Zurich (German) 53. 4% 42. 8% 3. 9% Geneva (French) 36. 2 61. 2 2. 6 Ticino (Italian) 50. 9 47. 4 1. 7 18

D. Custody (4) Attribution of Custody to Unmarried Parents (City of Zurich, 60% live together) Year # of Illegitimate children born Joint Custody 2010 1166 67. 8% 2008 972 65. 3 2006 679 52. 7 2004 634 41. 5 2002 649 40. 5 19

D. Custody (5) Discussion § Joint Custody: § Increase since 2000 § Low attribution when unmarried parents did not live together § Regional differences § Big differences to neighbouring countries with same language Sole Custody of Father (2010) Germany Switzerland 13% 3. 8% 20

D. Custody (6) Discussion § Problems with existing Custody Rules: § Consent “of both parents” § Too little contact rights + low protection Loss of contact (50%) § Incompatibility with Human Rights (ECHR, 2009): 21

D. Custody (7) Discussion § ECHR, judgement Zaunegger v. Germany (22028/04), 3. 12. 2009 § Discrimination of unmarried fathers (Art. 8 + 14 ECHR) § Protection of custody by Art. 8 ECHR § Custody includes decisions on: § Education, § Care & § where the Child lives § Requirement of judicial review (is measure in in Child’s best interest? ) 22

D. Custody (8) Discussion § ECHR, judgement Zaunegger § ? ? Right to Joint and Shared Physical Custody ? ? § Art. 8 ECHR § Art. 16 UN-Convention of the Rights of the Child § If JC & SPC in child’s best Interest: § no reason for restriction § Right of the Child to have best possible care-solution § Minimal consequences: § Regulation of SPC in legislation § Attribution of JC & SPC without consent must be possible (CBI) 23

D. Custody (9) Discussion § Lessons from Joint Custody Revision (2004 -2014): § Heavy opposition § Scepticism by many practicians and authorities § But: Wide Acceptance and openness by the Population 24

E. Shared Physical Custody (1) January 1, 2000 January 1, 2014 Divorced Parents Unmarried Parents Legally not possible Possible if • Joint Custody • Consent • Childs BI ? ? ? ECHR ? ? ? 25

E. Shared Physical Custody (2) Attribution § No official data § Büchler/Simoni (NFP 52): 5. 1% (28/567 divorces, Zurich & Basel) § Other results: § Mothers happier with JC § More contact between children and fathers with JC § Wealthy fathers had 2 x more JC § High education more JC § Paid work with shared physical custody: 0 -50% 50 -<100% Mothers 33. 3% 61. 1% 5. 6% Fathers 0% 42. 8% 57. 2% 26

E. Shared Physical Custody (3) § Shared physical Custody § very rare § Lack of interest by authorities § no data § No changes in on-going Revision § Big differences to neighbouring countries with same language Switzerland France Belgium Germany 5. 1 % 14. 9% 27. 1% «boom» § But: Acceptance that SPC is best solution for child if parents live together (Bürgisser, NFP 52) 27

E. Shared Physical Custody (4) § Possible Reasons for Low Rate of Shared Physical Custody § Lack of possibilities (official argument) § “Care-Taker-Rights” § Lack of Regulation, Recognition and Knowledge § Strong Opposition § Agreements in the Shadow of the law? § Possible problems if no regulation in maintenance Law (e. g. Germany) 28

E. Shared Physical Custody (5) Care-Takers-Right (Obhutsrechte; Droits de garde) § includes the right to decide: § who cares for child? § how is cared for the child? § where the child lives? § Is attributed to one parent only, unless consent of both parents § Share = Loss of privileges § Compatibility with Case Law of ECHR (CBI)? 29

F. Conclusion § Shared physical Custody… § …is in the best interest of the child § …is the ideal solution for most children concerned § …gives the care-taker more independence and makes him happy § …corresponds to the share of parental tasks before divorce § …is protected by human rights of the child and the parents § …is accepted by population § Urgent need for regulation and public information § Useful other measures in the CBI: check for “Die Cochemer Praxis” 30

Questions? 31

Thank you! 32