My understanding is that 50/50 care/residency of children (I'm not sure what is the correct term) is the starting point when parents separate, based on the assumption that it is in the best interests of the children. But a few threads on here recently have made me question if that is actually the case, and I am wondering if there have actually been any robust studies in to the long term outcomes of different levels of contact between children and 'non resident' contact?
I'm not really talking about the situations when one of the parents is clearly a waste of space (which sadly seems to be common). I'm thinking about when both parents are equally loving and capable parents. Clearly it is important for the child to have a strong relationship with both parents, but is the disruption of 50/50 contact actually the best way to promote that long term? What about the costs in terms of stability, ability to participate fully in other aspects of their lives etc as they get older?
Like I said, I'm just curious as to whether the courts are basing their preference for 50/50 on any actual evidence. My parents divorced when I was ten, and although I enjoyed it when I saw my dad I would have absolutely hated shutting back and fourth between two houses. Having a single home was really important to me, and that was with my mum.