To think 50/50 childcare split sounds terrible

Yanbu. It sounds horrible for the children. I'm glad my parents didn't try that nonsense.

It’s called nesting. It’s quite popular with a couple of people I know in America.

To me it makes sense, the kids get the stability and it’s the parents that have to move every other week.

one family I know one parent stays with their new partner and the other is a lodger nearer to work. The other family both have separate studio flats. In a way it could work out more economical than running two three bedroom houses.

One mom does bitch that her ex doesn’t do any house work/maintenance on his week which I guess could become infuriating over time.

Same as me and works perfectly well. My son is very happy as he doesn't like to go too long without seeing either of us. Have been doing that since he was 4 and is now 10. It can work.

That wouldn’t be 50/50 though? One parent would have 4 days a week and the other 3. 2-2-3 gives a 50/50 split.

*Both parents being really chilled and non dogmatic about their 'rights' and 'having' to have the kids their exact 50%, if a kid was sick and just wanted mum that day Dad wasn't going to insist they came back to his because it's 'his' day and equally if they were wanting to play a game or watch a film with Dad Sunday night mum wasn't insistent on them being back for 5pm on the dot.

this

If the parents can’t agree then the court obviously. Thats how it works. But if both parents are focused on the children’s best interests and not what is “fair” for them, they ought to be able to agree.

Sounds like insanity to me.

But then, so does any kind of arrangement where I wouldn't see my child 50% of the time so I suppose my opinion would be the same regardless of how it's split.

Poor kid. An under 1 year old baby with one week on, one week off with each parent. Definitely not in a baby's best interest.

@NoctuaAthene Excellent post.

Like others have said, I have seen it work really, really well for the kids but only where the adults are prepared and able to work together really well and collaboratively for the sake of the kids, putting aside whatever and whoever caused the relationship to fail, and properly commit to the kids having a truly equal relationship with both parents, not one being their 'real parent' and 'proper home' and the other being where they visit. This meant:

Both homes being equally set up for the kids, complete sets of everything at both homes i.e. two sets of school uniforms, two PlayStations, two lunchboxes and everything else, only a very few special or comfort items going between the homes so there was never hassle about things they wanted being at the other house or cause for conflict on whose turn it was to iron the school shirts or whatever. One family I know did shuttle the family dog around between both houses as custody of him was shared too!

The two houses being close by, within walking distance so although they started with a strict routine when the kids were littler so they knew who they'd be with which night, this could get gradually more flexible and relaxed as the kids got older and had more activities and things after school, until by the time they were teens they basically floated between whichever house took their fancy.

Both parents being really chilled and non dogmatic about their 'rights' and 'having' to have the kids their exact 50%, if a kid was sick and just wanted mum that day Dad wasn't going to insist they came back to his because it's 'his' day and equally if they were wanting to play a game or watch a film with Dad Sunday night mum wasn't insistent on them being back for 5pm on the dot. Holidays, special occasions were either shared or divided in a really sensitive way and again never ever allowing adult emotions to get in the way of the kids enjoyment.

To be clear I'm not saying everyone can and should parent in this way when they split. There's lots of reasons why it might not be possible and a more uneven division of time is best for the kids, in the short or long term. But I do think it's very wrong to say 50:50 is automatically cruel and unreasonable, I think on the contrary its actually the ideal to be aimed for...

But 50/50 combats that.

DF can't do minimal actual parenting, more like babysitting, if he has them for a week at a time.

This arrangement gives everyone chance to parent.

A split couple that I know do it with two houses. Luckily they had enough space in the former marital home to have a bedroom each. The other house is 3 bedrooms - a bedroom each and an office. One has the dining room as their living room.

It was a really amicable split though, I can't see the space sharing the working so well otherwise. They both even have new partners who understand it and are happy this is the plan for the next 3/4 years until uni time for the children.

My friend's child stay 6 nights with each parent. That way the days with each parent ‘shift’ naturally throughout.

Works brilliantly and no ‘it’s your/my weekend.

I think it’s crap - but it’s a crap situation.
What may be better for the kid in a 2/2/3 is the kid staying in the family home and mum/dad living in a home nearby on their “off” days.

It’s an arrangement that benefits parents, not children. Children have a right to see both parents equally, but growing up without the stability of one solid home is not good for their emotional development imo.

So who decides which parent is in the kids best interest? You seem to be implying mum

Exactly as the other poster said-damned if they do damned if they dont! And if its 50/50 then they are doing just as much parenting as the other.

I don't disagree with you. Perhaps I worded it badly. The bit I struggle with is the dogma that child must give up time with a dad because of the child's needs or the mums wishes.

Of course there are children for whom it is far better for their wellbeing to have one consistent home (and less with an inconsistent care giver). Of course there are men who quite happily have less than 50/50 and live their best lives. .

But where there are two safe loving consistent parents I don't believe that if the child needs greater time at one home it should default to the mother as so many people seem to feel.

Believe me I would kill for my kids every night. I stayed too long in a soul destroying marriage because I wanted to put them to bed every night.

But I also firmly believe with the experience of my children that a properly managed and parented 50/50 can offer them stability and consistency.

We do a 2-2-3 which is actually a 2-2-3. Week 1 Mon and Tues with Parent A, Wed and Thurs with Parent B, Fri, Sat, Sun with Parent A - then in reverse, so Week 2 Mon and Tues with Parent B, Wed and Thurs with Parent A, Fri, Sat, Sun with Parent B. Then start all over again

Each parent gets a weekend. Child isn’t away from either parent for longer than 2 or 3 days. Each parent has a chance to have a Bank Hol Monday, take child to swimming on Wed or whatever.

My step-children have always had 50:50 and tried

7:7 - far too long for everyone, kids and parents alike if it’s not a one off like a holiday. Weirdly it suited the toddler most but he was easy going at that age. The idea of 7:7 with opposite parent having the toddler for the day on Wednesday and older kids after school that evening too was mooted but flatly rejected by DPs ex.

3:3:2 was then what was done for several years. I wouldn’t say it worked especially well but it was the ex’s tactic to try and make my DP fail because it massively fucked up his work schedule due to school runs and them changing each week made days in the office etc. hard to arrange and inconsistent. He didn’t give up because he loves his kids more than anything, but it was confusing for everyone (kids, parents, grandparents etc. couldn’t figure out when we had the kids).

2:2:5:5 (Monday-Tuesday at dad’s, wed-thurs at mom’s then alternating weekends). This works the best by far and I can’t see it changing, it means both parents have set work schedules (mom works shifts but dad works flexible 9-5 and has office days on wed-thurs) and thus have all their time for the kids when they do see them. It means they always know what house they’re going to after school except on Fridays, but then they do know as they will be told (or as they’re older now anyway simply know as they know where they were before).

It really depends. I’m not sure making things exactly equal / “fair” for the adults is usually a priority from a child’s point of view. Certainly not always.

I’m not saying that 50/50 isn’t sometimes in a child’s best interests- in some cases it may very well be. But the point is that people tend to see it from what is “fair” for the parents (eg your comments about your ex “deserving” what you get)- which is not at all what child care arrangements should be about in any way shape or form.

As said already, no one forsees having to make these decisions when starting a family but for lots it has to be done.
I hope no one feels guilty reading all of these “this is batshit” responses because that’s a reality for many families and it can work well. I’m sure some are quick to judge on it without being in the position of not being able to tuck their children in every night.
Routines develop and organisation improves. Knowing it’s a mummy/daddy day, etc.
Problems can arise with clothes if one household isn’t on top of laundry or doesn’t have enough uniform. Nice new clothes can disappear to the other household and be returned when they have outgrown it. Children can arrive wearing dirty clothes of clothes completely inappropriate with the weather. Interesting how some fathers don’t seem to keep on top of clothing, replacing them when they outgrow them, etc.

But the children deserve equal time with a loving and safe parent don't they?

Do children not deserve to have a good relationship with both parents? Do children not deserve to see both men and women being equally involved in childcare?

This would be my dream (think I’m the only woman that would love this!) sounds like the ideal to me.