to think that if men automatically got residence of children they'd leave less often?

[NotANaturalGeordie]

- Yes, I am expecting a bun fight--

I think that if, in the event that a husband wants to end the relationship he was automatically expected by society and law to have majority residence/custody of the children (i.e. he couldn't leave them behind and 'move on') that less men would leave (see the relationships board).

No RL examples or axe to grind on my part - opinions please.....

Agree with linerunner. I don't see being left with my children as the shitty end of the stick by any means. But xp has had no change in his economic potential, he can still go out to work unfettered, can already start dating, his life hasn't any of the day to day difficulties or practical issues that mine does. Physically I am run ragged, I exist on no sleep, I have 3 dc to ensure are safe, warm, clothed and housed. When i get a job, I'm the one who will have to face getting fired when I take a day off if they're sick or hurt themselves. If ending the relationship meant he would have to do all that I do, he'd have stayed, no question. It wasn't even asked if he'd take his dc with him, or if I minded looking after them. It's just assumed. The government, society even, doesn't see this as a problem. We should treat parents who walk out on their dc as the lowest of the low. But we don't. The government now even want to charge us for the priveledge of collecting their maintenance.

I did actually see the other thread.It used to be automatic though that the man kept the DCs- I can't see any mother wanting to get back to that.

No experience of this so no personal axe to grind but going by some of the posts on here a lot of men seem to be able to walk away from their family responsibilities and start over with very little consequence while the wife is left holding the baby, often with very little money or help and it's just not acceptable. I don't think this is the answer but it'd certainly give the more irresponsible ones something to think about!

Sorry you are having a hard time cowardlylionhere.

Yours is the kind of situation that bothers me. If your xp HAD to have 50% residence then you wouldn't need to make/receive maintenance payments and could properly share responsibilities.

If a man like that had to take the DC's with him, well then his current situation would be very different....

It works both ways though. There are plenty of vindictive women out there who deliberately make it very hard for their ex to have a relationship with their children. (And, let's face it, many of them will also then blame the father and say that he just doesn't want to see the children or pay for them, ignoring their own part in the situation. But I digress...)

If a man thinks his wife is likely to cut him off from his children, he is more likely to stay with her. If he thinks he will get custody, he is freed from that particular concern and is more likely to leave. It isn't true to say that men do not feel as strongly about their children as mothers do - the fathers I know are just as loving and devoted to their offspring, sometimes more so. And there are quite a few mothers out there who have walked out on their children without so much as a backward glance, so that trait is not limited to men either.

And most normal people would regard having custody of the children as more important than having money or a career. Sure, it's harder doing it on your own. But far better than the alternative.

I think that most normal men or women would want the custody of the DCs and it would come way in front of money or career. Sadly it often turns into a fight rather than putting the DCs first.

I agree with you Anonymumous - my own DH would have had custody of his DS if he could (in a heartbeat). But it seems to me that society seems to forgive men for leaving children, but not women. And this attitude enables men to leave more easily.

However, if most normal people regard having children as more important than having money or a career, then why are SAHM's so poorly regarded?

P.S. I am not at all sure that a blanket 50%-50% split is always workable either. Surely it must be incredibly disruptive for the children? And what happens if the parents live a long way from each other - how would that work? If a parent really wanted to evade their responsibilities, they could still do so regardless of custody arrangements.

In Belgium, the norm for children over the age of 5 is for there to be shared custody, the most common pattern found is one week one parent one week the other parent. For it not to be the case there needs to be extenuating circumstances such as domestic violence. It might be a far better emotional outcome for Belgian children than UK children, but if you look at the number of divorces in Belgium and breakdown of cohabitation agreements (most unmarried living together parents have cohabitation agreements here), the statistics are not much different to those of the UK regarding relationshop breakdown.

I would bet there are more men staying in an unhappy relationship in case they lose their DCs than men walking away happily leaving DCs.

I don't regard SAHMs poorly. I can't see that they would be poorly regarded.

I'm a SAHM and I have a very high regard for myself, thanks very much!

exoticfruits I am sure there are many men and women staying in unhappy relationships for the sake of their DC's.

I think what I am really trying to illustrate that, due to societal attitudes and not the general fecklessness of men, it seems to be easier for men to walk away from a family than a woman.

We separated. Quite simply, my ex did not love me and did not want to spend her life with me. All I wanted was a relationship with someone who actually cared about me. We were friends - still are good friends. But it was never going to work as life long partners.

So it was expected that I would leave. Could I have taken my son? No. Just was not going to happen. I'd have happily altered my work hours and gone part time to bring him up.

Instead I spent 4 years living in shared houses whilst I gave a lot of my income to my ex to help support her and our son. That's just me. I do see him a lot but I don't think 50% shared care is good for a child as they are moving around. I have him twice a week and take him to school and pick him up.

She is part time and has lost money to help bring him up. I have fuck all money as I give a lot to my ex and I have to support myself. I would have loved to have DS more but I have to think of him.

Leaving was not easy. Not seeing DS every day breaks my heart. Christmas mornings, Birthday mornings - incredibly hard. I do still care a hell of a lot for my ex but I have to remind myself what it was like.

Staying in a crap relationship is hard. Leaving your children is incredibly hard. It breaks my heart to read on here how some men treat their exes and leave their partners for other women. I left because quite honestly I wanted to be with someone who wanted to be with me.

Yes, and I also think if mothers didn't very often automatically get custody, they might also behave differently.

I apologise exoticfruits and Anonymumous, I too have been a SAHM and am currently a part time worker, full time mum. I have very high regard for SAHM's.

However, I do not see SAHM's as well portrayed in the media, rewarded by government or given the credit they deserve in general. Hence my comment (which was not intended to offend).

not sure about that OP. but i do think that if fathers got automatic residency in teh same way it curently happens for women then i think there would be a lot fewer "absent parents" (as in the way there are absent fathers) because i think women would be less inclined to disappear and create more children in new families.

Hello cantthinkofadadsname I'm glad to get a male point of view and I'm sorry it didn't work out for you.

I am happy to admit that my perceptions have been skewed by the Relationships board. There is no happy way to end a relationship, and no good way to solve the childcare responsibilities conundrum.

For my part, and it is only my opinion, I really do think the ability of any parent to completely absolve themselves of their responsibility to their children, physical and financial, is something that needs to be restructured. In theory.

However - in most cases I know of in an 'amicable' divorce most parents want to achieve the highest level of involvement they can and custody is structured accordingly.
In nasty divorces/ending relationships you then have to legislate for one party using the children as amunition, in a threatening way to gain control or just wanting to up sticks and get out with their assets intact - enforcing 50/50 can be damaging. Some of these cases it may be possible to enforce a 50/50 agreement but I don't think they would stay.
I don't think it likely that a parent behaving in the way that leads them to be, essentially, child free and living the life of riley would stay if 50/50 were enforced. I think it more likely it would be easier for them to make the situation untenable and therefore not suffer the social and financial impact custody and provision would have. If anyone would, in one situation, leave the children without support, not keep visitation and maint agreements, essentially 'start over' it's unlikely they are going to stay in that same relationship if they 'had' to have 50/50, they would just find another way out or the kids would get dumped on any available childcare source.
It wouldn't stop the narcs, the MLCers or the habitually feckless.
Better legal provision for the RP would help. Better enforcing of access for NRP that are being restricted access would also help - it's a clumsy system at present.

If your xp HAD to have 50% residence then you wouldn't need to make/receive maintenance payments and could properly share responsibilities.

That is incorrect - my friend has two children, one predominantly resides with her, the other with the EX-H ...... he pays her £800pcm CM, and she pays him £200 PCM CM ..... all through the CSA books

One would rationally think tjat if there was a 50/50 split on childrens main home there would be an embargo on playing tennjis with the money.

Hypothetically, if there was a true 50/50 split on residency, the child/ren would indeed be ounced around like tenis balls - and which parent would assume the responsibility for something simply like paying for school dinners? one would assume the other had , or you would have endeless text tennis regaring 'its your turn to do tue/weds, I did mon, thurs Fri, those are your days next week'.

So as lovely as the 50/50 thingis - realistically, a child needs a home base.

Nuts, sorry distracted so took ages and am redundant. Apologies.

After my XH walked out I actually said to him, how about if I walk away instead of you? You stay here, bring up DD, struggle with work, school runs, keeping house etc? He just gaped at me in shock.. He threatened a couple of times to "have her all the time", but as soon as i said ok, sure, go for it, he backed right down.

He wouldnt even have DD for one day a week in the summer holidays due to work, yet took a week off to go abroad with friends.. That tells you his priorities as to where his daughter comes in the list.....

XH chose to move 20 miles away. Not the end of the world, but not practical to have her overnight in the week and get her to school etc. There is no way in the world that he would be able to bring her up and go to work. He doesnt have the support network that I do. his family are useless and he cut off all his friends here when he left.

Maybe some dad's would be able to deal with it, but most of them relish their freedom. My XH was not a great social person, yet now appears to be out every weekend and not wanting DD to get in the way of his social life at times...

I must say i only know one absent father amongst the children of separated parents, the rest have 2 houses. If the UK had the same system, there would by consequence of the shared care be less absent parents, yes 9 out of 10 of them being male. There would also be less of this giving up a job to avoid maintenance and not going back to work to keep benefits. Separated parents are not allowed to stay at home and stay unemployed until their children are old enough to have children, there must be around 80% of mums in employment here. Child care is cheap and subsidised for those on low income. There is much I dislike about Belgium, but their shared care rules for children is one of the real plus points of the country.

My son is the most precious thing in the world to me. Yet I miss out on so much just by not being there everyday. Little things going on in his life. I go out of my way to ensure my ex gets enough maintenance. I think the recommended level is too low TBH.

It would have made financial sense to stay. But I did not want DS to grow up in the atmosphere that existed. However, he's now growing up in two households with not a lot of money. It's hard. But me and my ex work well together and have maintained our friendship which DS knows.

I hate reading on here about men who don't take responsibility for their children. And the way some men treat women. I just wonder what the school gate mums think about why we separated.