Judgment over children’s living arrangements

[Chickenstewie]

SIL and BIL are divorcing.

They have worked out child arrangements between themselves. The two children will stay with BIL Monday to Friday and SIL will have them Friday evening after work until Monday morning when he will pick them up and take them to school.

BIL will have them in the week as he’s self employed and can work once he’s dropped them at school and will finish work at 3pm to pick them up and spend the afternoon/evening with them. He can also be flexible to take days off/wfh when they are off school sick, he can make up work time at the weekends - this has been the set up since they were babies anyway while they have been together, so nothing changes for the children apart from mum not coming home at 7pm.

SIL is out of the house 8am - 7pm with work and commute, so if she had them in the week, she would pick them up from their dads and then only see them for an hour before bed anyway.

They are going to have equal time school holidays as SIL job is term time and BIL self employment is quite flexible.

They are all happy with this arrangement.

So why is poor SIL getting so much grief? She’s had some awful comments about “abandoning” her children during the week. How they couldn’t do it, and that she should fight to have them in the week and for dad to have weekends. Why, so she can see them for an hour a night, rushing dinner, bath and bedtime, verses two whole days and three nights with them?

She’s getting judged so harshly over it, it’s so unfair. In her shoes, I would do the same thing, she gets far more time with them on the weekends.

Why are people so quick to judge if a woman doesn’t have her children during the week?

Because most people think women are the default parent and are expected to do everything for her kids. Even if a man leaves his wife and children, it's always seen as the women's fault. for example the negtiivty around single mothers....

Because sexism is still alive and well.

The child rem have 2 parents who can care for them well and who can work their week to maximise the time spent with the children.

Sounds like your B and S IL are doing what’s best for the children and they should shut out the noise from people who are basing the set up solely on an outages presumption the mum is the primary carer.

Honestly I think she should change jobs if that means she doesn't see her kids for the majority of the week. Also, what happens when the father meets a new girlfriend?

I understand why the arrangement is sensible and I have no reason to judge but for me the thing that stands out is that she won't see them/spend time with them at all for a week.
No little chats after school or before bed, no idea how their day has been etc.
I know lots of fathers do exactly this but as a mother I personally couldn't handle it. Maybe because people can't put themself in her shoes they struggle to get their heads around it.

The same reason women get grief for working full time but men don’t.

Women are expected to be the primary carer and if they aren’t there must be something a bit suspicious about them.

I feel a bit sorry for the dad getting the weekly drudge while mum gets the relaxed weekends...

As they get older she might be able to see them more in the week?

With her work schedule it sounds like that’s pretty much the case anyway during the week.

If they’re school age they can have a phone to message / call her.

So it would be better to see them for an hour in the evenings verses all weekend, every weekend?

I would rather the weekends in her shoes.

And the job is term time only, which makes the hours and the commute worth it to her.

Would you say the same about a dad?

and about what if the mum meets someone new?

sexism. Sounds like a great arrangement considering working schedules. One parent has all the time for DC during weektime, and other all weekend.

It’s been the same since they had children. His business is more flexible, so he’s always worked to that schedule, aside from when she was on maternity leave. They are just carrying on what they are used to.

Its old unfair attitudes. They are sexist to men and women.

Many people think that the mother should be the default parent. This makes the mother have more work to do, and it devalues the father as a parent.

When my parents divorced, my mother was given sole custody and my dad was given visitation rights. We saw him every second weekend. And then it dwindled to once every couple of months as my mum wouldnt let him see us.

The courts just assumed that because she was the mother, she should get more custody.

Actually my dad was the much, much better parent. He was kind and fatherly. My mum was cruel and nasty, she called me fat ugly and useless and made me be like a servant to her.

But she got full custody.

I think the set up sounds great. It suits everyone

The problem is that weekends are considered quality time, and as such its unlikely BIL will go along with no weekends for long. And any court will support him in this. So what she might actually be signing up for is every other weekend. So long as she is happy this and the child support commitments thats ok. But she should be aware, every weekend might not last for long.

As a Magistrate in family court, I'd like to say well done to them for sorting a plan out, to meet the children's needs.

The detritus I see and the inability of some parents to focus on the children is astounding and anyone critical of their plan should, quite frankly, shut up.

Because people are stupid and/or thick.

Doesn’t matter what’s best for either parent. This is an ideal outcome for the children. They will have the undivided attention of at least one parent at all times they’re not at school. Not many children get that.

Separately, I can’t believe the poster who said SIL should get a new job just to be able to spend a short amount of time (less than BIL) with her kids each weekday and not at all during the weekend. Firstly, jobs don’t grow on trees. Secondly, add up all the after school time of a FT working mum and it won’t equal as much time as a weekend. Thirdly, why shouldn’t the children see their dad during the week? Fourthly, job first and children second if job is needed to buy food and shelter for children. Fifthly…. actually I can’t be bothered. It’s just batshit how myopic some people can be.

I get what you are saying, but he’s been making up time with work at the weekend since they had children. They didn’t want to use childcare, so when the children were very small and she went back to work, MIL had them for a few hours in the day while BIL worked until the afternoon and picked them up. This isn’t something new, they have been doing it all along, BIL spending time with them from the after noon and working at the weekend to make up for the time.

Not everyone uses courts for divorce, many people settle money and child issues between themselves, me and my ex husband did too.

I think that sounds ideal really. People will judge no matter what they do - either she isn’t parenting enough or she’s being a doormat or she should fight for more or insist on less. ‘People‘ have no idea what the right thing is. If everyone is happy and the kids are taken care of that’s wonderful

Changing jobs is easy to say, difficult to do. Besides, she’ll need all the money she can get as a single parent. It’s pointless pretending that once you’ve split up you can see your children as much as before the split; if the other parent also wants to see them, you can’t, it really is as simple as that.

I think it sounds like a very sensible arrangement, and SIL should ignore anyone being critical.
But, if it were me and I was on good terms with ex, I would probably see if I could go round at least once a week for bath time and bed. Or, if she were able to finish work early enough, the occasional dinnertime, maybe a meal out and maybe with ex if that was acceptable. Just because I think she will miss them midweek and there will also be occasions when ex will inevitably want them at the weekends eg family birthdays, celebrations, weddings etc.

She also has a term time only job, so they can be even more flexible in the holidays to allow for his work etc.

They still get on okay, on good terms and they are both fantastic parents, their only concern in all this has been the children and keeping them happy and settled.

Generalising wildly here, but just from hearsay, it seems like in a divorce most people presume
1) that the husband instigated it, or the woman did but only because she HAD to get away from that cheating or worse abusive husband.
2) The woman would dearly love to have the kids 100% of the time, but "poor thing" can't because the dad has to have them sometimes.

Sadly woman who decides that the kids are better of with their dad, is either

1. a sacrificing martyr because she recognises that, through some awful affliction that isn't her fault, that the kids are better looked after by their dad.
2. a selfish bitch who obviously doesn't put her kids ever.

The idea that a mum can actually respect her ex as a good parent, respect her kids as being happy with their dad and be content with letting him have 50% or more parenting because that fits with his schedule, the kids schedule, and her schedule and everyone is happy with it, seems not to fit.

@XelaM Because...? This is a very outdated idea and I am pleased to see a father stepping up.
They often get berated for not doing so.

They are only little at the moment and in bed early, but they have both spoken about things being more fluid in future.

He has moved out at SIL is in a house she inherited from family, but he’s only gone round the corner so they are very close to each other.

I just feel so sorry for her at the moment as some of the comments she tells me are just horrendous, you’d think she’d sold the children to a workhouse.

Mumsnet is full of women saying that they patriarchy/misogyny are not things. Then this post.