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.....

My BIL would have loved to have the majority of the contact with his DC after he split up with his wife.

They had a row, she said that if he didn't spend the night at his parents, she would take the kids and leave, not knowing where they would go.

He returned the next day to his clothes in black bags outside, the locks on the house (on which he was paying 100% of all the bills) changed and that he had to fight for almost a year to have contact with his children.

I accept that I only know his side, his ex has had no contact with us for over three years now, but I can't help but feel that she would not have been so vindictive if he got automatic rights to spend equal time with his children.

She has now moved a few hours away, with the children, so that his midweek contact has had to be stopped.

I think the default should be 50/50 and then they work around that.

From what I have seen men do find it easier to walk away. My friends DH left for OW and is enjoying the freedom with no kids, no school runs and a lot more money. He won't have his kids fir a whole weekend as he plays a sport on a saturday and thus cones first obviously. I think he would have thought more about leaving if he'd had to take more responsibility for his children and I am shocked that society is not harsher on parents like this.

To those that think 50/50 can't or won't work, well in Belgium it does and it's now the norm. So if one country can change, so can another. It helps here though that SAHMs are very rare and child care is cheap and if public sector, it's means tested, also that children start school at age 2 1/2. It makes if far easier for mums NOT to give up careers. It means more egality of income. It means when there are splits, working out maintenance is much easier. Yes parents split bills like school lunches and school trips.

I don't think it's true, societies which are generally more equal, e.g. Denmark have just as high divorce rates.

In Sweden the default has been 50/50 for many years, and it's only recently that that has been questioned. It hasn't cut down on the divorce rates at all.

What it does mean is that both husband and wife have to accept restrictions on their freedom, as you obviously can't move far away if you have school aged children and 50/50 custody. So you're stuck, often within sight of your ex, in a small community,which may be a long way from your own support network. On the whole, people accept it, because the general mantra is that Children have to come first.

There is a presumption of shared care in Australia too. Not great when children are very small, but it seems to benefit everyone as they get older. Similar rules to what Cory describes.

Well in Belgium housing benefit doesn't even exist, neither does council tax. You have national and town/city income tax too. Child benefit is not taxed, nor is it means tested, I guess it get split 50/50, except in cases where there is only 1 parent full stop which is extremely rare ie when a parent dies or has left the country. Yes parents remain equally primarily responsible, unless a court judge has ruled otherwise. The rule is that children must remain having the same lifestyle as before break-up, as women are more likely to work full time and have higher incomes here, child maintenance that the bigger earner might pay the lesser earner just doesn't seem to get any publicity. There simply isn't the culture of one of the parents going or remaining on benefits.

It would also depend on the age of the children as well. If a couple split before their baby was born, it wouldn't be workable to have joint custody of a breast fed newborn as it would need to be with its mother.

I don't agree with 50/50 custody as a rule - it's too one size fits all, even with older children. The arrangement should be what works for an individual family.

No, they would leave MORE often imo

lots of men stay in unhappy relationships because they know their DWs will get to "keep" the dc

I completely agree with 50/50 care, from a young age, this country is totally skewed in that it has gone from fathers keeping the children, to mothers doing it (in the main I do know a few male RPs).

If I was to split from DH, I would share custody, and I am an extended breast feeder, I firmly believe that the role of the working parent is being down valued in the UK, my husband is an equal parent to me, I feel he makes more sacrifices than I do, by working to provide for us.

I don't feel that being at home with the children is a sacrifice - I prefer being at home with them to being in work, I was actually the higher earner so it would make more sense for DH to have stayed home, but I missed them so much.

I have seen so many threads where the children are deemed better off with mum, simply because she has, up until a point, been the main carer, where the mans contribution means nothing, and I have seen that in RL too.

I think more men and women would leave unhappy relationships if childcare was shared, but it would take a massive cultural and legal shift for that to happen in this country.

I believe in Belgium it's 5 years old that 50/50 kicks in, that is what a mum told me who'd gone through it and has some children over 5 and some under.

Oh I know a couple who split before the child was born. At 3 years old the child was doing 50/50, he's the happiest child you could imagine, the parents live not too far from each other, the child has never known any different. I also know a child whose parents have 50/50, no exceptional circumstances, but the dad moved too far away to have this child 50% of the time on a week on / week off basis, so now the child stays term time with mum in the week, some weekends and a great proportion of the school holidays, so probably 60/40 split, but the parents still have equal rights.

Visualarts I would imagine that if there is true shared care then child maintenance isn't exchanged. In Denmark spousal maintenance/alimony is rarely awarded and if it is it is often time limited. So it is unlikely there would be any maintenance to assess for benefits.

I would gladly give up the ExH's £150 a month in exchange for him parenting properly and 'allowing' me the chance once again to have a career in the area in which I have a PhD. Then I could earn some money, and accrue some savings.

At present I just shuffle from one little free-lance project to another - he does nothing to help with bringing up the children, but imposed a contact order he has never adhered to, but which means I can't move.

Benefits in Denmark tend to be more service based, i.e. free/subsidised childcare rather than being given as money, so they're not means tested in quite the same way.