To say 50/50 isn't ideal for many children?

No anger, that’s too strong a word. I think a lot of what you say is sensible and balanced. It’s a number of other posters who are in the dichotomy I discussed and do not want to openly say they feel the mum should take precedence.

there already is an independent objective body that decides that. The court. It is likely to deem that 50:50 is fair in most cases so there’s no assumption on my part that objective decisions mean men losing out. Far from it.

and on your final point, yes some dads want 50:50 to avoid maintenance. Some mums object to 50:50 to keep maintenance and I have seen that on this site.

I find it interesting that you quoted my post to make this point. I didn't suggest the father should automatically have less custody but that an independent, objective body should make the call on where the children should live the majority of the time. This absolutely represents another way to 'square the circle'. Your assumption that this would mean that fathers would lose out implies that you believe that fathers represent a worse option for the children in the majority of cases.

FWIW I don't necessarily think you're wrong about this but I think your anger is directed at the wrong people. Why would most fathers not be seen as objectively the best parent to have the children most of the time? Surely the men are best placed to change this rather than the mothers or the system. I have seen too many selfish fathers enforce 50:50 contact when it is clearly inappropriate, damaging and really upsetting for the children. I have seen fathers openly admit they want this level of custody to lower their child maintenance bills. I have never seen a mother do this.

This is a very reasonable/ logical position. But unfortunately in the opinions of most people+ the courts, what is “fair” for men is more important that the best interests of children.

I agree with this.

I feel like there are many arrangements between the two extremes of 90/10 and 50/50 that could work for different families in different circumstances.
I also think that what's right for early primary age children might not be right for teens and it might be best for the arrangement to change as the children get older.

This rigid way of thinking can't be good for children as it seems like it is focused on a
preconceptions about what's right rather than actually looking at the situation and making a judgement based on its unique nuances.

Actually I think that the parent who does the majority of parenting and is closest to the children whilst in a married couple should be the parent with residency. 90% of the time that's the mother, sorry but it just is.

If you have had a 50/50 parenting split in your married relationship then brilliant, go for 50/50 when you divorce. But if one of you has been significantly less involved than the other, then no I don't think it's fair for the children to suddenly have 50% of their time with that parent, whether male or female. I think it's destabilising and distressing for them in the majority of cases.

I appreciate that many will think it's fairer, but it's not (or shouldn't be) about what's fair, it's about what's best for the children.

And this is the elephant on the thread.

lots of posters believe 50/50 is bad (I’d be interested in seeing those studies that are referenced) but also don’t want to have less time with their kids so the only way to square that circle is to state that they believe dads should have less. They know that’s unfair so are not saying it openly

Don’t hold your breath @Summerdew

And the weather is 29° out there today. We can all say random stuff on here but it doesn’t make it true

Of course they don’t have the links, because they don’t exist. Certainly not peer reviewed ones…

But this is exactly my point! I think there are lots of couples where both parents would want to have at least 50% custody of the children. So selfishly I would want this and I know my DH would HOWEVER I do think that a 50:50 arrangement would be incredibly damaging for my children even though it would potentially be the fairest option for both of us adults.

I don't think my children should be sacrificed on the alter of their parents' selfish desires so ideally I think some kind of external body should look at a range of factors including the preference of the children and practical arrangements and they should make a call on where the children's primary base should be. It shouldn't rely on one parent 'sacrificing' themselves as all too often, the parent prepared to do this may well be the parent that would objectively offer the better primary base for the children.

With this in mind. If you did split with your DH and he rigidly refused to accept less than 50%, would you voluntarily give away more than 50% of your time?

I don’t disagree with you that children should have a “base”. However sadly, it’s not really a win win for anyone whichever way it pans out.

I’d be really interested in these studies that say 50:50 is bad too. Courts act in the best interest of the child and as 50:50 is their starting point I’m wondering if these are relatively new. If anyone can point to one from a reputable peer reviewed source I’d be grateful and interested to read.

It depends on a lot of factors doesn't it, me and my ex are 50/50 but we are amicable so if DS wants to stay longer at one or the other sometimes its fine, live within walking distance of eachother and so DS' school and social life isn't affected. For all his faults his dad is actually a brilliant father as well so he is getting decent care, attention and love in both places- his stepmother is lovely too. He is fortunate enough to have a fully stocked bedroom at each house and neither of us have any more children so he's dealing with that dynamic.

If circumstances were different then perhaps it wouldn't be the best option.

Yes definitely depends on how close the parents live to each other. I am just referencing other threads on here recently when a mum was saying that the dad should take the daughter to a birthday party, and to sport events etc on his weekend. Which means driving back to the place where the mum lives if they live in different cities and it just reinforces the aspect that everything the kids do is always at the mums place and they don’t develop anything at dads.

Does that depend on where the parents actually live in relation to eacht other? Any no one HAS to go to all parties they are invited to no matter where they live

Another thing to add is that expectation that when kids are with dad, they still have to go to all parties they are invited to, sports activities etc. which means that the main home is very much enforced that way. There isn’t a big chance to feel at home at dads or build some relationships there and like others have said, very much a chicken and egg situation.

My DH only had 1 night, eow and half the school holidays when DSC were small (adults now) - that seemed to be the standard at that point. I think DSC in some ways preferred having one stable base although it did affect how they viewed (and still viewed the two homes) but it was driven quite a bit by their mum too (financially) and she wouldn't engage with requests to change arrangements to enable fairer split. If we were to separate now, DH would absolutely look at 50/50 or 60/40 with our DD.

In trying to reassure yourself and see the ‘silver lining’, OP, don’t inadvertently put down divorced parents who do 50/50.

You’ve said it yourself – none of it is ideal and your ex is a crap dad who wouldn’t have his children for more time anyway. In your case, of course yes, your children have the benefit of a stable home base and attentive, loving mother. Would it be better if their dad was just as loving and attentive? Yes, but that’s on him.

Do you have links to any of the studies?

It's a tricky one as most studies say it's bad for kids to do 50/50.

Growing up I saw my dad for about an hour every couple of weeks so he never felt like a real dad but my mum wasn't a great mum either so 50/ 50 between bad parents wouldn't have made me close to either of them.

My children's dad has our 15 year old 3 days a month. I've tried and tried to get him to take more of an interest but he won't. I think it would have been in our child's best interest to see his dad more when he was younger as I was working long hrs so it would have been nice for dad to cook a meal etc rather than him having to microwave something I had left out for him. So more time with dad I think would have benefited everyone but I'm not sure if 50/50 would have been in his best interests. He gets on with his dad but they aren't close and it's me he would come to with any problems. I think it's sad for him and I wouldn't describe his dad as a proper parent.

A lot of dads refuse to do more than the bare minimum so 50/50 isn't an option.
I do think it would be hard for the children in a 50/ 50 situation to never know which house their things were in etc rather than having a main home.

50/50 does not always then mean equal parenting. A child can spend 50% of time with a parent who doesn’t enforce, homework, bedtime, tooth brushing etc but is on paper ‘stepping up’. It always seems the father is given credit and the mother is sort of looked down on ‘I wouldn’t be able to do that’ etc. It means though, with flexible working, that both parents can work full time.

It is not ideal but staying together is not the right thing and despite best intentions it doesn’t always work out and being in an environment with unhappy parents is not healthy either.

YABU

My dds are homage now teens choose and do their own thing which has become almost 50/50-
They have 2 houses, 2 bedrooms and love it.

They feel sorry for kids who don't have 50/50 and I think it's helped by no extra children being bought in either so- my ex and I have not had any more and partners have no kids.

It depends on the set up- they need 2 if everything - it helps being able to ferry then about and ex p and I having a great relationship

I think the best things for the kids is being in a positive safe environment where they feel loved

This . I was relieved when my parents divorced.