What do you think is the ideal child custody arrangement?

[AdamRyan]

Having read yet another thread where the poor op is being crucified for doing 50/50 care with exH, sometimes it feels as if MN is all "LTB" on the relationships board and then "child is not a parcel" on parenting threads and it confuses me.

So, what is the best set up, assuming 2 parents both want to see their children ad much as possible?

The issue with that (which would be fair and sensible) is that the week day parent then complains they never get any quality time with the children.

We suggested 3 weekends out of four and on the off week one night mid week. Rejected out of hand by DP's ex wife as she wouldn't see them enough at weekends. She then elected to move 50 miles away. So we are stuck with mid week 100 mile round trips to do school runs. Because she couldn't give up a weekend as 'quality time' but also didn't want to give up time in the mid week because 'involvement in their every day lives'. What it actually came down to was that she didn't want DP to see them at all really -her proposal was 4 nights a month, which was to be fair quickly rejected by family court. That's why 50/50 needs to be the presumed starting point at least.

As someone mentioned above, the problem with the blanket '50/50 is shit' approach is that alternatives like '2 evenings a week and every other weekend' then seem to be the alternative but that doesnt seem like enough either, for a child or for a parent (for a dad, because 99% of the time its the dad because of course mums been doing all of the parenting up until now)
And in twisted, total un child centric way i think its fucking shit that so many dads get big pats on the back for being such an amazing dad for doing two evenings and every other weekend. And mum still does EVERYTHING else. It might be child centric but it perpetuates this 'mum is default and should be grateful of what dad gives her especially money for a child they BOTH created' But obviously at the end of the day you want to do whats best for your child. Its just shit. All of it. And i firmly believe that you should never stay together for the kids. And the child should come first. But it enrages me so much to see men get accolades for the bare minimum while women are juggling childcare and jobs and everything else and a selfish horrible bit of me thinks you should aim for 50/50 because its not fair on women to get backed into a corner forced to enable men not being fully engaged parents with the juggling and stress that involves. But that might not always be best for the child.... and round in circles it goes. Im sure you see my dilemma 😆

50/50 can work well for some. It shouldn't be the default and there are plenty of dc being parcelled around so both parents get their 'fair share' of time rather than the dc getting a home to live in the majority of the time.

I think 50/50 sounds great but the reality is pretty awful for most kids. Constantly shuttling between 2 homes isn't easy!

50/50 with a "nesting" type arrangement where the parents come and go while the kids live in one house is probably the best option for the kids. Difficult for the parents though. Parents living next-door to each other would also be pretty good.

If those options aren't available, then I think every other weekend and maybe going over for dinner once or twice a week is probably the best option. Or the NRP regularly spending time with the child in the child's main home. Or both.

50/50 is really about the parents' needs rather than the children's imo. I get it, I mean, in that situation, I would probably be fighting to have my kids as much as I could. I think people can convince themselves off the back of that that it's better for the kids as well, but not having a consistent, stable base is pretty shit in my opinion. DD has a couple of friends who are constantly moving between their parents' house and it is really stressful for them.

Personally, I would hate to have to keep coming and going between two homes all the time, and I would rather sacrifice my own time with my child than impose that arrangement on them.

If for any reason my DH and I split up I would have to move to a much cheaper area, so 50-50 just wouldn’t be doable. I don’t think he would seek it either as I’m the primary carer. They would miss him hugely though. Makes me sad just thinking about it.

Depends on the child I guess. I don't think what's fair for the parents is as important as what's fair for the child. My ex has no contact with our DC but that's his choice, he's a twat.

50/50 may well be the best option if it maintains the status quo of the child's life before the divorce. So, if child is used to being looked after by both parents equally, it makes sense for that to continue.

However. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that 50/50 should be the baseline purely because the child must have an equal relationship with both parents. In my family- and most families I know- children don't have an equal relationship (in terms of time) with both parents while they're still married! I can't see why time between parents must suddenly be equal after divorce when nobody has an issue if children are looked after mainly by one parent while they're still together.

Following

I say whatever is optimal for the child to keep them happy and stable, even if means seeing one parent less. We gave DS the flexibility to choose. Ex cunty-DH moved a couple of streets away - he may as well have have moved to fucking Mars. DS never wanted to sleep at his. He was useful for providing babysitting duties in the evenings, but didn’t step up as a father. He has pretty much exited our son’s life.

50/50 can be very tough on a child if it isn’t what they would choose or want. I’ve seen kids shuttled around under awful circumstances.

@FarFromHome2 🤣🤣🤣🤣 sure. Please just mention that to my ex and the OW he ran off with would you? Preferably before he ups and moves 200 miles away to live with her. Thanks. All my problems solved.

There have been quite a few studies that show that 50/50 is the best arrangement and that there is little difference in outcomes for a child seeing both parents 50/50 and a child raised with two parents together.

In my experience it allows the child to build a good relationship and have quality time with both parents which - let's face it - doesn't always happen when the parents are together!

I think half of the week with one parent and half with the other works best as it keeps the weekly routine predictable

Honestly I'd say the absolute best, for young teens and below, is for the children to stay full time in the family home, and the parents take turns to stay in the house with them. This is the set up that is in the best interests of the children. Once they reach an age where they are getting themselves to and fro everywhere, then maybe the option of separate houses is fine?

Highly impractical for the parents, but truly the best for the child.

I should add 50/50 doesn't have to entail shuttling around if you live fairly closeby and hangovers are just picking up/dropping off from school. The parents should be organized enough to make sure kid has raincoat etc and kid shouldn't have to drag stuff back and forth.

As a child whose parents divorces when I was 5 and I did 1 in e weekends with our dad and my brother 1 in 3 weekends w our mother I don't think that works to create a loving parental relationship.

I was in my 20s before I found a way with my relationship with my father. Our mother passed 7 years ago my brother told me last year 'I don't really miss her she was not a big part of my life' I suspect I will feel similar when our dad goes. Not that I won't grieve or miss him just he was not 'in' my life growing up and as an adult I moved to the UK. We are far apart speak every 2 weeks and he is lovely but the parental relationship is flawed.

However I think divorce does that to many children no matter what the intentions of the parents are.

My friend did 50 50. Her adult boys now have very little to do with their father who starree a 2nd family and hasn't got.the time for his sons. Other friend dis 40 50 both parents have a close relationship with their children of the 2. The 50 50 couple. Coparented the best. No argument lots of.joint decisions etc. However life lead different plans.

The most successful I've known was 50/50 ish, with the parents living just a few streets from each other. By mid/upper primary age the DC were essentially free-ranging between the houses, seeing both as home.

That only works if the parents can deal productively and amicably with each other. And probably only if you are reasonably well off, as you need pretty flexible budgeting if you know you've got them roughly half the time but don't necessarily know which days when

Please can you link to these studies? I imagine there are plenty of factors they didn’t control for.

I am not sure how to put several links in one comment but here is one which looked at 40 studies

afesp.com › 2018/06PDF
Shared Physical Custody: Summary of 40 Studies on Outcomes for Children

OP is asking what IS the best.

50/50 is fine if the parents live close together (to allow continuity of things like clubs and friends) and are prepared to work out the time amicably.
There's no "one size fits all" you have to do the best for your family.

It totally depends on the children, their parent and their norms.

For my kids 50/50 would likely be best as DH and I split things very equally atm.

For my SIL her ex is military and always has been. He’s away for long periods of time and when he’s home he’s always insisted on his downtime. So for those kids to suddenly go 50/50 it would be a massive change in life away from their main carer.

When my two girls were young what worked for them with my ex, had he remained interested in them, would have been different. One would have happily flowed between two hours fluidly with no set plan. The other would have needed a rigid plan of days, times and details.

There’s no right or wrong answer. Only the best option for the specific child involved in a specific circumstance.

One of the most successful 50/50’s I’ve know was a pair who bought the house next door to their marital home. They split it upstairs and downstairs - upstairs was his, downstairs hers. The kids stayed in the main house and the parents had week about in the house with them.

This will be unpopular but I wouldn't do 50-50 while my children are young. Ive always been their primary care giver while P worked away, did whatever, and it's me wanted when DS is unwell or out of sorts.

Did this with older kids. One of them detests it. Feels in the middle and wants separate houses. Also not good if the parents aren’t getting on and very expensive as other properties are needed. 3 lots of fuel bills and further council tax depending on how it is being managed.

What’s best is what suits the kids, it’s not about seeing one parent more than another it’s about children having a consistent and safe, secure home. It’s not always possible to do 50/50 and it doesn’t mean that one parents relationship is any less than the resident parent. It’s also not fair to request 50/50 because you don’t want to pay maintenance like my ex. He’s an idiot tbh and should never have seen my kids.

my younger kids dad however is a great dad, does loads with them but also does school runs, after school activities etc the same as me. We do 60/40 as his shifts allow for that and my kids love going there and love coming back. I pop in to drop stuff off for them or take one out of the other is at football or similar, my ex and I have a very amicable relationship because that’s what is best for our children. I know (from previous experience that’s not always possible) I was amicable with my older 2 sons dad but he did something to irreparably damage that.