Author archive Oliver Hunziker

On January 12th, Federal Councillor Sommaruga announced that the finalized reform of joint custody law would be postponed for at least one year.
We think – enough is enough! Read more

The Federal Council's decision not to pass any legislation on joint parental custody as a matter of course for the time being is unjustifiable. It is a victory for those forces that seek to prevent equality between fathers and mothers for ideological reasons. GeCoBi has therefore published the following press release:

For almost eight years, the Federal Council has been working on a new regulation for joint parental custody. For two years, the Federal Council has been promising to present a draft bill.

And now, a clearly focused proposal that already enjoyed majority support is to be turned into a political patchwork. Under the guise of "majority support," an issue is being buried that can no longer be stopped in any other way. The majority of the population and the majority of parliamentarians have long since spoken out in favor of joint parental custody as the norm. With the transparent trick of linking custody to child support, the inevitable is now to be postponed for several more years. The apparent goal is to reignite old conflicts. The fact that we have a legal vacuum in this area since the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in December 2009, because the existing laws violate human rights, seems to be of no concern to the Federal Council.

The Federal Council apparently still hasn't grasped that this approach is going in precisely the wrong direction. Joint parental responsibility, as GeCoBi has been advocating for years, presupposes that both parents share responsibility. This also means that both parents should have the opportunity to assume both childcare and maintenance responsibilities after separation. However, this is only possible if the starting point regarding custody rights is equal for both parents. The current regulations clearly and blatantly disadvantage fathers, who have no way of obtaining or retaining parental custody without the mother's consent. Conversely, they also reinforce outdated societal structures, almost inevitably leading to divorced women being forced into childcare, while divorced men are forced to work full-time due to alimony payments. Fathers who want to fulfill their role as parents are thus pushed out of their children's lives.

If, instead, the legislature insisted that both parents jointly find a viable solution for childcare and maintenance in cases of separation and divorce, and provided these parents with appropriate assistance (mediation, etc.), significantly more positive solutions for all parties involved could be expected.

A child's right to both parents is a fundamental human right. Making this right dependent on a financial arrangement is putting the cart before the horse.

Oliver Hunziker,
President of GeCoBi

13.1.2011

After the first version of the Childcare Ordinance (KiBeV) was panned by GeCobi, politicians, and the public, the Federal Council sent a revised text out for consultation in autumn 2010. While this version is considerably better, it still has glaring weaknesses. We submitted our comments on these weaknesses during the consultation process.

We had clearly rejected the Federal Council's initial proposal for several reasons . Children removed from their parents were to be placed in the care of placement organizations, which would have effectively assumed parental authority. We also rejected the idea that out-of-home childcare would become a playground for bureaucrats, a view that was widely condemned by the public.

The present draft represents a significant improvement over its predecessor. However, we disagree with the Federal Council regarding childcare outside the family. It is fundamentally the responsibility of parents with custody to arrange for the care of their children. They should also be free to decide to whom they entrust their child's care.

Regarding the organization of foster care, we are deeply disturbed, given our tragic experiences with the fate of children placed in foster care, that the draft regulation makes no mention whatsoever of the employment of children and young people. There is an urgent need for regulation in this area. Furthermore, we firmly believe that foster parents need and should receive appropriate, practical training for their highly demanding task. This is a fundamental quality criterion for dealing with often "difficult" children and young people. If the state intervenes so drastically in the constitutionally protected sphere of the family and removes children from their parents, it must also ensure that the children are genuinely better off in their new environment than they were with their parents.

Response to the consultation KiBev II

The Federal Commission for Family Affairs (EKFF) has launched a proposal to create 24 weeks of parental leave. Four weeks of this leave would be reserved for fathers. GeCoBi welcomes this initiative because it brings renewed momentum to an important issue for all parents. Read more

On December 16, the Federal Council took note of the responses to the consultation on the draft law on joint parental care after separation and divorce. He just wants to keep joint custody after a divorce; unmarried fathers would have to apply to the court. GeCoBi has commented on this in a communiqué:

The Board of Directors of the Swiss Association for Shared Parenthood (GeCoBi) welcomes the fact that the Federal Council intends to uphold both joint parental responsibility after the parents divorce and the criminal liability of refusing visitation rights.

However, we are surprised that the Federal Council wants to keep unmarried fathers and their children at a disadvantage. The abolition of discrimination based on marital status was welcomed by the majority in the consultation – contrary to the statements in the media release. According to the Federal Council, unmarried fathers should only have joint custody if the mother (who automatically has it from the birth of the child) consents to this or if a court grants a corresponding application by the father. Two weeks ago, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) condemned Germany because the automatic exclusion of unmarried fathers from custody stipulated in the law violates the ban on discrimination. We cannot understand why fathers should again be systematically disadvantaged on this issue. We are also convinced that the ECtHR would also classify such a regulation as discrimination and that the law would have to be amended again.

Parental responsibility is first and foremost a child's right, namely the right to be cared for. The equal relationship to both parents is also a fundamental right of children according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The children concerned do not care what legal relationship their parents have with one another. It is important for them that they have a stable relationship with both parents and that both are there for them. With the joint parental responsibility propagated by GeCoBi (which in many areas goes beyond the purely legal concept of joint custody), the framework conditions can be created for children to cope as well as possible with the separation of their parents.

The laws are not made by the Federal Council, but in Parliament. We are therefore confident that the national and state councils will adopt a solution that does not discriminate.

Federal Council communiqué

Consultation Responses

GeCoBi also submitted a statement as part of the consultation process on tax relief for families with children, which ended on April 15, 2009. The design of the tax burden on parents and families is a crucial lever in family policy. Tax incentives not only affect the finances of those affected but also reflect societal appreciation of certain behaviors. Therefore, GeCoBi demands the implementation of joint parenthood for unmarried parents in tax law as well.
GeCoBi believes that both parents have a natural priority in the care and upbringing of their children. We therefore reject government incentives that unilaterally promote external childcare. Instead, the government should do much more to offer parents a choice between providing care themselves and using external childcare. With regard to the revision of tax law, we therefore propose the introduction of a sustainably noticeable tax credit for children, combined with the tax deductibility of the child's subsistence allowance. This would also benefit parents with middle, low, or no incomes. Unmarried parents with joint custody should be able to benefit from tax breaks for children in proportion to their share of childcare.

The full response to the consultation can be found here.