The age of enlightenment

It’s a big deal when children reach the age of seven. Here in the Philippines, a more festive than usual birthday celebration greets a seven-year-old boy or girl. Old folks say that it is upon the seventh year that a child becomes less vulnerable to sickness or any other external threat.

Child development professionals say that seven-year-olds have developed more self-control and emotional stability. The child becomes more introverted and thoughtful, says Kimberly Keith, a licensed professional counselor on childparenting.about.com.

The law also recognizes the importance of this magic number. I’m not a lawyer but I am aware, as most people are, that at age seven and below, custody of a child belongs to the mother in the event of parental separation—assuming that the mother is not a raving lunatic. It is presumed that the mother knows how to best care for her child during these early years. But upon the seventh year, the child is presumed to already be discerning. This is the reason that children seven years old and above are asked to determine who it is they want to stay with, their mother or their father.

It can be arranged, of course, that the child would shuttle back and forth and spend an equal number of days with both parents. He can have the same number of clothes in both houses. Perhaps one weekend the child can go out of town with Mom, and go to the mall the next with Dad. Spending time with both parents helps the child better appreciate them as individuals and develop a healthy relationship with them.

It is indeed the best interest of the child that must be considered in all “sharing” arrangements.

It may be argued, on the other hand, that having two houses could be unsettling for the child. Is not having to deal with both parents, being careful to be equal all the time, a bit taxing for the child who is supposed to be focusing on his studies, spending time with his friends and just taking it easy? Life is already hard as it is.

Now let’s say the child is based with one parent. Should he or she be encouraged to spend time with the other parent as well? By all means. But in the event a child, for some reason, does not want to, and vehemently, must that child be forced to “be fair” with her time and affections, no matter how she feels about it?

Kids, after all, are perhaps the wisest fellows on earth. They always have sound reason for choosing whom they choose. We adults, on the other hand, let pretensions, vested interests, and other considerations dictate our decisions. Not kids. They will choose to be in a place where they feel they are adequately cared for. It’s as basic as that.

Moral obligation? Sure, there is such a thing. Extended-family households are popular in this side of the world. We Filipinos are known for revering our parents and elders, caring for them and providing for them long after they have stopped being productive and especially when they get sick.

But when children are still children, unable to fend for themselves, the moral obligation is TO them. They should be fed and clothed well. They should be safe. They should have adequate closet space and comfortable sleeping areas. Beyond these basic needs, they should also be made to feel as though they belonged. There must be good-natured interaction with other members of the household. Mutual respect for personal spaces. Genuine interest in their day-to-day. Participation in family decisions—be it as mundane as the flavor of the pizza to order, the cable channel to tune to or the length of time of one’s turn at the computer. Constant concern for them, whether or not the parent is busy with work or having dinner out with friends. Predictability—making plans and following through on them. It’s an entire life, not just hours and days technically spent in the company of either parent.

These things eventually draw a child into wanting to be at one place instead of at another. Anybody more than seven years old will be able to appreciate these and decide accordingly.

So how does the other, “less wanted” (for lack of a better term) parent react and perhaps try to change things?

Attacking or reprimanding the child is definitely not the way to go. Pressuring the kid to choose you, out of an obligation, is potentially damaging to the young psyche. It will cultivate an mindset of guilt, horribly misplaced as it is. It will alienate the child from you even more and thus fan a vicious cycle.

Accusing the other parent (okay, your ex) of badmouthing you—especially when it’s not true—is also counterproductive. It only breeds animosity especially when both parties are trying hard to present a civil atmosphere and show that being separated does not mean trying to murder each other every time they get the chance.

What the other parent must do is make the child want to spend time with him or her out of the child’s own volition. Do I mean expensive vacations, fun road trips and the latest high tech gadgets? That would be bribery, and kids would know better than to fall for these even as they can get excited in the beginning.

Ultimately, kids really just want their parents to talk to them and be knowledgeable in things they consider important. They want to feel they can count on their folks no matter what. That they will be loved, no matter what. Remember, this is not about the parent, it is about the child.

Like respect, a child’s choosing to be with you cannot be demanded; it is earned.

adellechua@gmail.com