<doc.id=1021.b2>
Lennart Westman and Mats Solding, each representing a Swedish parental organization, are urging the legislators to change the laws concerning the caretaking of children of divorced parents, in their article (UNT 14/2/00). In the form of an open letter to the Minister of Social Security, Ingela Thalén, the authors are arguing that children of divorced or separated parents should be registered as living with both parents. Westman and Solding also claim that economic support should be given both parents to share, in those cases where the children spend as much time living with both parents and that information from the school, health care services etc, be sent to both homes alike.

Westman and Solding are asking the community to make sure that two adults, parents of mutual children, will not have to communicate inÿformation concerning their children to each other. This proposal would, if it was made into law, certify that no one parent is kept ignorant of important information concerning the children, but what I would like to argue against such a proposal is that two adults should be able to handle this, without the interference of the community. After all, communication between the two parents would be in the best interest of their mutual children. À

In conclusion, I would like to stress that I believe strongly that the first thing to consider, in cases where children are involved in a divorce, is what is in the best interest of the child. The next step is to take into account what is the most practical solution for all involved parties, children as well as parents and society. Economy should never be the factor which is allowed to be the judge of what is best for the individual child. To make sure that this does not happen, society could in some cases help to even out the economic differences between the child's two parents, so that they can concentrate on being parents and thereby taking full responsability for the wellbeing of their child.

Westman and Solding argue moreover, that children who are spending as much time with both parents should be allowed to be registered as living with both parents. This would secure the equal flow of information to both homes, they claim. I would like to argue that this is a proposal which is not in the interest of the child, but of the parent. A registration with the authorities that your child is living under your own roof does not make you any more or less a parent. Joined costody of the children gives both parents equal responsibility to decide what is best for the children, no matter where they are registered. Parenthood is not a matter of official registration, but of responsibility and care. What is more, it is not a practical solution, seen from the perspective of official records, that some people, children or adults, could be registered at two addresses. It would only create confusion, for example as to where official information should be sent. To send all official information to every citizen to two or more addresses would, of course, also bring a substantial rise in the money spent by the authorities to buy stamps! 

In the article, Westman and Solding are making a number of demands that the legislators of this country should change the laws better to fit the conditions growing out of an increased number of divorces and separations. Laws are of course of importance when it comes to issues such as child abuse, but in most cases, both parents are fit to take care of their children and they should also be able to communicate as adults in the best interest of their mutual children. The authors of this article claim, for example, that all official information concerning the children, such as letters from the school or health care services, should be sent to both homes equally. This is, however, a proposal which would secure that information reaches two adults living separately by means of public service and not by adult and responsible communication between the parents. 

Furthermore, the article urges the legislators to change the laws concerning economic support to children. If a child spends as much time living with both parents, Westman and Solding argues, then governmental child support should be shared by both parents and not sent to one of them, as it is today. I do not agree with this. On the contrary, I claim that the support should be sent to the parent who has got the lower income. If there is a considerate difference in income between the two parents, then the children will suffer from this, the time they spend in the low-income household. Governmental child support should therefore go to this home, to make up for what the children might loose materially during their stay with this parent. Consequently, it would not be fare, as Westman and Solding proposes, to give up the system of economic support from one parent to the other, if there is a considerate difference in income between them. Economic support must be sustained and aimed at helping the children where they most need it. Arguing that it should always be shared, seems like a proposal that would fit the parent first, not the child. Furthermore, it must be up to the parents, in the first place, to support their children, wherever they are.

Many attempts have been made over the last couple of decades to solve the problem of how best to provide for those children whose parents are divorced or separated. In Sweden today, it is becoming more and more common that these children live with both parents alternately, one week in this home and the next week in the other. The practical problems that these living arrangements present should, however, be solved by the parents and not, as Lennart Westman and Mats Solding seemingly proposes in their article, Children Have the Right to Both Parents, by society.
</doc>