It's a sad problem, I agree - but I don't think it's one that you can come up with any given answer for.

The question "are children adequately protected after the breakdown of their parent's relationship" implies there is automatically a third party there to pick up the slack, presumably the government.

The thing is - the government can only step in in extreme circumstances, which is as it should be. As much as I hate the idea of children suffering needlessly, I don't think having an over-zealous regulator ready to step in and seize kids at the slightest sign of conflict, will do much to help.

The simplistic implication here - that it's assumed there's automatically a way to fix these situations for the children of separation, is a little near-sighted.

Most of the time, this responsibility rests with the parents, and the parents alone. It's up to them to adequately protect their children, and keep them as the first priority.

Are children adequately protected? Probably not. But that's because sometimes, you just can't. It's sad, but true. Unless the situation is truly devastating, intervention is likely to just make the situation worse.

TurnRightThenLeft "The thing is - the government can only step in in extreme circumstances, which is as it should be. "

I think that in practice it's the other way around. Rather than having a default position for child residency and stepping in for the extreme situations the government leaves the door open for conflict in ordinary situations. They intervene by providing a tool for people to try and isolate kids from from a former partner where there has been no abuse. That's part of the problem.

Start with shared care, if one parent does not want the kids then there is no conflict, if one parent is a substantiated abuser then our normal processes should work.

With both parents actively involved in a childs life the potentail for unreported ongoing abuse or neglect to happen is significantly reduced.

R0bert