Do women really want 50-50 childcare?

[Truckrelented]

I'll be open from the outset I am a man, who used to post regularish but I've been off here for a while.

I am a father that has shared residency of our children, but with the threads I've read recently and conversations in real life I don't see a lot of interest in this.

Now I would have thought this was the way to equality as it enables both parents to carry on working and be independent and to have equal involvement in their children's lives.

But it seems that would be preferred is the father to see the children every-other-weekend, pay his maintenance (in whatever way it was agreed) and pretty much be a McDad.

Is that really what people want?

sorry op womens careers have been suffering/non existent for well ever because they have more often than not been the primary carer in the home whether the partner is there or not so you career taking a dent is not a surprise but a side effect of being an involved parent.

I think in the early years the status quo should be upheld.
So if one parent does the majority of the care it should stay the same, as the children get older things change and they can then make their own choices.

And I also think if the parent who the children are with can't look after them, the other parent should get first shout at having them rather than a nanny, child-minder or relative etc.

I had a 50:50 arrangement with my dh when we separated for two years. It worked pretty well, with no obvious scarring to anyone. It was a bit odd being a single parent for half the week and single the other half, but it also gave us both opportunities to live independent lives, whether that was having a drink with friends and not worrying about when to be home, doing DIY late into the night or taking an evening course. Plus when we had the children the time was more precious.

I'm not aware of having been judged for 'letting' dh have the children half the week, but then everyone I knew had been there for the very traumatic period that went before and recognised that it really was working for us.

But we did have pretty equal parenting roles before we split, and although the split was not amicable once we did live apart our relationship improved immensely (so much so that we got back together again).

My DP and his exW have a 50:50 arrangement for the DSSs. It's a formal agreement that grew organically out of a more informal arrangement that got renegotiated over time.

I think 50:50 can work well for some families, and I have a lot of practical experience that I am always willing to share with others on how to make it work for everyone involved. But I certainly don't think 50:50 shared parenting is going to work for all families in all circumstances.

I've only read the OP and no doubt the thread has moved on, but you are starting from entirely the wrong premise truckrelented

Approach it from the angle of what is best for the children and proceed from there.

I think that shared parenting has to be approached from the angle of what will suit everyone concerned: father, mother, children, stepparents, half-siblings, step-siblings.

flippinada I do think it's actually very hard to tell sometimes what is best for the children. Unless they are over 12 or so (and even then) they're not likely to have clear views on what would be best for them....so it has to be interpreted either by parents agreement (which is clearly the best way) or court order.

And Bonsoir has a point because if one parent 'wins' at the expense of the other that parent is likely to be miserable and bitter (and yes I know that has to be got over, as I am trying every day to get over my bitterness and not let it affect the kids.) A miserable parent is not likely to be at their best.

The current court system allows parents who primarily use paid care to look after their kids to be treated as if they were providing the exact same sort of care as a parent doing it by themselves. I for one don't think that is right at all.

Also courts will tend to uphold a very briefly established status quo. So thus in my case and others I have found out about, a brief period of 50:50 in order to let one parent recover from e.g. a nervous breakdown (not unusual in the context of divorce) can quickly solidify into a 'status quo' which negates the previous years of primary care. This isnt' right either.

NO NO NO

I dont agree with how it is, I think its awful and unfair. If god forbod me and DP split I know we would both want more. I think its disgusting that good fathers only get to see their kids every other weekend. FUCKED UP

but porca they usually don't only get every other weekend if they negotiate and/or go to court.

During my days as a family lawyer I saw that a 50/50 split could work very well indeed but only where both parties were prepared to make it work which included putting aside any feelings of bitterness from the breakdown of the relationship.

It also involves new partners being completely on board (as Bonsoir clearly is) : many new partners and wives do not want their step children living with them half the time.

I would've liked a 50:50 split in childcare in our home when the children were young enough to need it - I mean with DH and me still living together.

One of the reasons I stayed with DH was because I couldn't bear the thought of even a single weekend without my children. A 50:50 split after divorce would have destroyed me. The thought of a Christmas without them brings me to tears even now.

I don't personally think that a 50-50 arrangement is best for very young children. I have a close friend who has to do this with her pre school DD, and the child is passed back and forth several times a week. She has regressed since this arrangement started, and even things like potty training are not happening because my friends exh refuses to communicate with her about parenting issues and all of the work she puts in is ignored by him for half the week.

He insisted on 50-50 as 'his right' and the court agreed, despite the fact that he had never done any of the childcare when they had been together. She is constantly being told that this is in the best interests of her child, but all she can she is a little girl who clings to her crying, isn't sleeping and doesn't know whether she is coming or going.

wordfactory - in our case, the DSSs are the only two siblings my DD (their half-sister) is ever likely to have, and we all have strong feelings about wanting to spend time as a family of five and the children all spending proper time together as siblings.

I think 50:50 is probably a lot harder where there are stepchildren who are not related to one another as those strong bonds between siblings very likely won't exist.

am not divorced so have no experience, but if it came to it then I think we would have to go 50-50: dh would be just as lonely as me without them (perhaps more) and they would miss him just as much, he has always been so involved in their care

besides, they are old enough to have an opinion and I can't imagine them saying anything else

my brother had 50-50 and it worked well for them

millie why passed back and forth several times per week? Surely a once per week handover would be enough? 3/4 days per parent?

I am not in that position. As a mother I would hate it, but I think that it is much the best option for the DC. Both sides need to push their feeling to the background and make it work. If the mother doesn't want to be a 'weekend' mother she ought to realise that the father doesn't want to be a 'weekend father'. The DC can only gain from 2 parents who are 50:50 and make it work.
If the new partner don't want their DCs living with them half the time they shouldn't be living with someone with DCs.They do not come alone.

Allegrageller, she is handed back and forth 3 times a week, so she never has more than 2 nights in one place. It is a really disruptive arrangement but CAFCASS devised it.

3/4 days a parent seems much more sensible.

millie they sound to be honest like a couple who couldn't make any arrangement work.
If they can't speak to one another properly about parenting then even an every other weekend arrangement would be frought with anxiety...I've seen it so many times.

exoticfruits what happens if one party in particular cannot push aside their bitterness and uses the shared residence to control the other and compete in terms of parenting? This happens far more often than post-separation idealists would like to admit.

Australia has had a presumption of 50:50 for years now. The long term outcomes have been shown to only be positive where the parents were entirely amicable and flexible and each prepared to make sacrifices in order to make the arrangement work. Given that we are talking about divorce here, how many ex-couples will achieve that? It just isnt' pragmatic sense.

If I were a family court judge I don't think I would be awarding shared residence where the parties clearly hate or seek to control eachother. I say that even though in my case I'd have lost residence completely in my own case, because of the mistakes I made at the time of separation.

Painful though it is I'm actually considering becoming the non-resident parent myself right now. I've been so broken at times by this whole process, that I don't want it to affect the kids any more than it has to. I have chronic fatigue and a 2 hour commute to work atm. After I left my job I couldn't find work in London (am in a very specialist field). xH will not shift from the former family home which he got post-split by threatening me with injunctions if I tried to come back and live in it again. I'm in incredibly expensive rented accommodation as the area he has me trapped in is a rich one. The whole situation is just wearing me out continually and I know hat he does not give a sh*t about anything but his 50% with them. So I feel someone has to step back for the kids sake and it has to be me as he sees it all as 'fight to the death' (he said that to me when we split).

good god Millie. That sounds appalling. I've heard very bad things about CAFCASS tbh. I caved in to xH in my case before they could get involved.

You are possibly right wordfactory, the animosity between them is horrendous. However the specific arrangement and having to see each other 3 times a week seems to maximise the conflict. If 50-50 needs to happen in their case then I agree with exoticfruits that a 3/4 day split would be better.

Bonsoir your attitude sounds exemplary. I suspect it takes a hell of a lot of effort on the adults' parts to make it work.

My BIL has recently moved in with his new partner and her children from the previous marriage. He has until now been having his children regularly to stay. I am trying to advise him that he muts try to keep this up, but his new partner's children are not keen and space is an issue. Sigh.

btw want to point out I don't hate my xH at all despite the fact that he has told me I am 'dead as far as he is concerned' etc. However I will readily admit to bitterness, which I daily try to fight with, over what this shared residence arrangement is doing to my life- that's why I feel it might be better for us all if I step back from it.

indeed millie- that much handing over is quite clearly disruptive plus maximises conflict between ex-partners. What a flipping mess CAFCASS dreamt up there...

I have heard that week on/week off can also work quite well in these circumstances. I would have done that but xH was obsessed with 3.5 days per week to the extent of prescribing the HOUR that I had to drop the dcs with him....