People rave about Atomic Habits by James Clear. I do not. It’s not a bad book, but not life-changing, at least not for me. Maybe it didn’t move me much because I’m not the target audience (it’s probably best for young people who need to learn self-discipline). But the book includes this story that opens chapter 11:
ON THE FIRST day of class, Jerry Uelsmann, a professor at the University of Florida, divided his film photography students into two groups.
Everyone on the left side of the classroom, he explained, would be in the “quantity” group. They would be graded solely on the amount of work they produced. On the final day of class, he would tally the number of photos submitted by each student. One hundred photos would rate an A, ninety photos a B, eighty photos a C, and so on.
Meanwhile, everyone on the right side of the room would be in the “quality” group. They would be graded only on the excellence of their work. They would only need to produce one photo during the semester, but to get an A, it had to be a nearly perfect image.
At the end of the term, he was surprised to find that all the best photos were produced by the quantity group. During the semester, these students were busy taking photos, experimenting with composition and lighting, testing out various methods in the darkroom, and learning from their mistakes. In the process of creating hundreds of photos, they honed their skills. Meanwhile, the quality group sat around speculating about perfection. In the end, they had little to show for their efforts other than unverified theories and one mediocre photo.
(emphasis mine)
The Custody Connection: Why Quantity of Contact Matters
That photography class experiment reveals a crucial truth that family courts consistently overlook: you cannot separate quality from quantity when it comes to parent-child relationships, when it comes to raising good kids.
The prevailing wisdom in custody disputes prioritizes “quality time” over “quantity time,” as if these concepts exist in opposition. Courts routinely award one parent primary custody while relegating the other to “every other weekend”/Disneyland Dad-style visitation, justifying this arrangement by asserting (falsely) that meaningful relationships can be built through intense but infrequent interactions.
This approach is fundamentally flawed. True quality time isn’t a magical, infrequent occurrence; it’s the inevitable byproduct of consistent, frequent, and often mundane “quantity time.”
The Relationship-Building Reality
Just as Uelsmann’s photography students needed repeated practice and exposure to trial and error to develop excellence, parents and children need consistent, frequent interaction to build strong, trusting, loving relationships. Consider what actually creates parent-child bonds:
Daily micro-interactions: The casual conversations during car rides, help with homework struggles, comfort during minor disappointments, and celebration of small victories. These moments cannot be scheduled or manufactured during bi-weekly visits.
The value of “garbage time”: Jerry Seinfeld captured this phenomenon perfectly when he noted that some of life’s most meaningful moments happen during what he called “garbage time”—those seemingly unimportant stretches when nothing special is planned. It’s during these mundane moments that children often open up about their real concerns, share their authentic thoughts, or simply enjoy comfortable silence with their parents. The every-other-weekend parent misses virtually all of this garbage time, yet it’s precisely these unstructured, low-pressure interactions that often produce the deepest connections and most honest conversations.
Conflict resolution skills: Healthy relationships require working through disagreements and misunderstandings. Parents who see their children infrequently often avoid necessary discipline or difficult conversations to preserve their limited “quality time,” inadvertently undermining the relationship’s depth and authenticity.
The “Statutory Minimum” Fallacy
The concept of “statutory minimum parent-time” reveals the poverty of our current approach. This framework assumes we can calculate the “optimal” least amount of contact below which parent-child relationships begin to deteriorate—as if the point of parent-time is to limit it as much as “reasonably” possible. This thinking is not merely wrongheaded; it’s perverse, it’s tragic.
This is not to ignore genuine constraints that may prevent equal physical custody: geographic distance, work demands that require extensive travel, documented abuse or neglect, disabilities, or severe interparental conflict that creates a toxic environment for children. These factors legitimately limit how much parents and children can appropriately spend together.
However, when equal physical custody is feasible—when both parents are fit, available, and committed—children deserve nothing less than maximum access to both parents. The burden of proof should rest on those arguing for less parental involvement, not on those advocating for more.
The Equal Custody Imperative
Equal physical custody as the default serves multiple purposes:
– Child development: Children benefit from the diverse strengths, perspectives, and parenting styles that both parents offer. Neither fit parent possesses a monopoly on wisdom or care.
– Parental engagement: Parents who know they will have significant ongoing responsibility remain more invested in their children’s lives. They’re more likely to attend school events, maintain relationships with teachers, and stay current with their children’s evolving needs.
– Practical equity: Both parents typically contribute to children’s financial support. Why shouldn’t both contribute equally to their emotional and developmental support? The current system often perpetuates gender stereotypes, whether by defaulting to maternal custody based on outdated assumptions about caregiving or by reducing fathers to second-class parents fit to be nothing more than “visitors” in their children’s lives.
Beyond the False Choice
The quality versus quantity framing creates an artificial dilemma. The photography students didn’t have to choose between excellence and practice; their excellence emerged from practice. Similarly, the highest quality parent-child relationships develop through the quantity of shared experiences that only equal physical custody can provide.
Children deserve no less time, no less consistent care, and no less consideration for the profound benefits that flow from robust, dual-parent involvement.
When we limit one parent to minimal time with the children while expecting them to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children, we’re essentially asking them to produce that one perfect photograph while denying them the opportunity to learn and develop through experience.
Moving Forward
This photography class story illuminates a profound truth about parent-child relationships. Just as we cannot expect a budding photographer to master the craft with a single, or even a few shots, we cannot expect a child and parent to cultivate a profound bond on a “minimum contact” schedule. It’s not enough. Quantity is essential to quality.
Legal professionals, judges, and legislators must recognize that current custody presumptions fail the children they claim to protect. Equal physical custody should be the starting point for custody discussions, not an exceptional outcome requiring extraordinary justification.
This isn’t about parents’ rights (well, it is, but not only about parents’ rights)—it’s about children’s needs. Children need both parents actively involved in their daily lives, not relegated to the periphery by the “quality through artificial scarcity” heresy.
________________
What are your thoughts on the relationship between frequency of contact and relationship quality in child custody and parent-time arrangements? Have you observed this dynamic in your own experience or professional practice? Share your perspective and help advance this important conversation.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
