Psychologist, Psychology, The Law Versus Human Instinct

Psychologist says that physical bonding with the father is very important for the child development and psychology.  OK, I can accept that.  But to what extend the importance of this area of psychology until it supercede other areas?  So a child feeling unsettled from spending nights at different places, wetting themselves from the instability, crying themselves to sleep, not wanting to bath because they are not comfortable, only eating unbalanced food is considered OK because they will soon adjust and adapt.  


OK, I am no psychologist.  I am just a mother.  Do those symptoms above not indicate that a child is psychologically affected?  So why is it a lesser evil compare to the physical bonding with the father?  Why do we say that child will adapt and accept that he has to live under two different type of care and instability but we cannot say the same that a child will adapt and accept that his father has walked out of the family?


As it is said, all this came about in the recent 10 years because of some father movement.  So why the past DECADES, child/ren from a broken family still survive?  In fact some of the most prominent figures are brought up by a single parent - be it divorce or death of a parent.  Or why the psychologist then differs from the psychologist now?


My question - are the psychologist and law really based on the best interest of the child or did this stem from a disgruntled father movement started 10 years ago?  ( I do wonder why these disgruntled father's never change the law with God to allow them to get pregnant too!)


On the psychology aspect, which psychology effects has lesser/lower long term effect - 1) the divorce or 2) the result of the divorce.  


I guess most will say the result of the divorce.  OK, so this is the two scenario from my perspective as a mother. 


1) Father and mother divorce.  Mother and child move on with life with mother trying her best to provide and nurture.  Yes, father figure is gone on a permanent basis but child still continue being in contact with father.  Child grows up understanding that divorce happens, the sacrifice of mother as well as father to ensure a stable upbringing.  Mother and Father has minimal conflict as mother appreciates the sacrifice the father puts in for her and the child to move on.  Child remind to self that a marriage require hard work, not just a bed of roses.  Child recognise the sacrifice the father has to give up and the sacrifice mother has given.  As such, when child gets into a relationship and marriage, he/she is very cautious but will give their best as they do not want their children to end up the way they were.  


2)  Father and mother divorce.  Child is split like yo-yo between mother and father.  No two people are alike so under mother's care, there is a set of rules and under father's care, there is another set of rules.  In some, there are even differences in believes and culture (in my case).  If child is still a toddler, there is so much confusion and instability.  Then as child grows older, they discover the differences/feud between mother and father could be taken to their advantage and take that conflict to their advantage turning father and  mother against each other.  Meanwhile, deep in their mind, it could sway both way.  Either they are so afraid of marriage because of the conflict and scar of their parents or they take marriage easily.  They could learn from their parents that when the going gets tough, just walk out.  Besides, it's the modern world now, you can protect yourself with Family Trust, pre-nup so there's no big loss.  And the law protects your right as parent over your children so you can still have them.  So why should they make an effort to stay in a marriage.  


I could be cynical towards the law, psychologist and politicians because I find that most people now prefer to 'hide' behind laws/studies/ etc and put aside the gift of discernment, the gift of instinct given to them.  They have fear to use their instinct because it has no scientific backing so it is safer to stick to something that has a backing.  


All I feel is my instinct, my protective nature as a mother is being challenged in the name of the law and psychology.  There is no more freedom to be the way you are and to love your child the way you want.  If you protect them, there is a limit because it then becomes over protective.  If you nurture them, cross the limit, you are called not giving them the freedom.  If you care for them and cross the limit, it becomes you are their servant and get reminded that you must be the boss.  


If any psychologist reading this, I am happy to have a chat and take up any challenges you want to throw my way as long as that will provide a better life for my child and I.  A freedom to love and care without boundary.