to wonder why men are almost always the non-resident parent

[womblesofwestminster]

Yes, I know I could win an award for most clueless person, but please humour me.

Why is it that when parents separate, it's almost always the mother that the children live with and who has to do the bulk of the mundane parts of the childcare? While daddy gets to pay a cash sum each week, pursue his own interests most of the time and then be Disney the rest of the time.

Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

I really don't think being the resident parent is a bad deal. Maybe if ex fecks off completely and pays no maintenance, but otherwise if maintenance is being paid (especially in my country where it's higher than CSA) and nc is taking every other weekend and one midweek, so you get a break, then I would much much much rather be the parent with residency.

Well according to a friend and colleague of mine, she is the RP because her ex told her that the best way to be a parent was to be a part time so he could have his cake and eat it. I would have been but I already knew he was a complete tosser.

I don't know. My ex (father of DD1 and DS) wanted 50/50. He got it. I am lucky in that althoigh he was a shit husband, he was and is a great father and makes sure the DC are put first. We aren't friend,y t we are amicable because we are both putting them first. I know, for my friends' relationships/splits, that I am lucky in that respect.

Imsosorryalan:

"Friends of ours do 50/50 so their two kids go to one sun - wed then to the other wed- sun then alternate the week after. Initially I thought the kids were being passed from pillar to post but it works for them and now I think it sounds like a good idea. My dh would almost def want this.
I wonder why most courts don't favour this?"

a. as a poster has said earlier, often it doesn't go to court; parents decide informally, and the set-up you find so odd (female parent having residency of children) is what both parents have decided.

b. the courts decide in favour of what is deemed to be the children's best interests.

So the question then becomes: "Why do most parents opt for this set-up?" and "Why is it so often deemed in the children's best interest for teh mother to be the resident parent?"

The answer almost certainly has a lot to do with the continuation of gendered domestic set-ups.

I will admit that I think your OP is amazingly naive not to have thought this through. Do you not know any single parents? Have you no imagination? And what I mean by that is this: you say "Oh my darling husband would be heartbroken by losing contact with the children" but presumably you are not considering separating from him? Try and imagine the sort of behaviour that might cause you to feel alienation from him? For example, acting in a way that is massively disrespectful, hurtful, or just plain harmful for the children? It may surprise you to know that some NRP do this. And that is how they end up as NRP. Extrapolating from you husband to the NRPs who don't have full-time care of the children is utterly pointless.

As an example, I know one NRP who made child pornography with his children. That's how he ended up as an NRP. He was also an abusive bastard to his wife. So. There you go. One answer. As you can probably see, extrapolating from your husband to Mr Chappie here is thick, frankly.

An awful lot of other NRPs just sodded off.

Yes, yes, there are some chaps out there who are utterly devastated and heartbroken by not being the resident parent, and are prevented from seeing their offspring by evil, wicked women. But I do think they are a very small number.

I look around the people I know and, to be honest, the flakey dads were just flaky - when they were married/in relationships, and when they weren't; the dads who wanted to be parents carried on being parents even after a split; the shit, irrepsonsible ones, who fucked off/were binned for being crap, carried on being irresponsible/shit; the ones who were downright dangerous carried on being that.

Coming at this from a child of divorced parents, I am extremely thankful that my father disn't manage to get 50% residencey as I would have been devastated as a 7 year old but I would ave had to go along with it.

When residency is decided, are the opinions of children involve taken into account?

My ex was a stay at home dad before he left and now has the dcs 2 nights a fortnight and often palms them off with his parents

His loss -apparently he's done his bit

"A lot of fathers also worked out that if you have 50/50 you don't have to pay CSA too"

I beg to differ hiddenhome, you certainly do. My DH had a 50/50 agreement, he was a lower wage earner than DSS mother, and he still had to pay CS. Because he is not in receipt of the child benefit, so he is not the PWC.

He would give his right arm to be the resident parent for DSS; we would both love him here full time. Dads are not all lazy.

Child Support is greatly reduced in the case of 50/50 if it's paid at all.

I believe that the Fathers Rights Movement has come about since they figured out that the more you have the child, the less CSA you have to pay. This is what's driving these men. Sure, some mothers may be vindictive and deny access, but there are far more fathers trying to dodge the CSA.

I hate to say it but I think that a women who chooses to leave her dc when a separation occurs will find she is judged very harshly by people who know her. Not the same when a man ups a leaves. Obviously there are exceptions to this but I know of one mother who only see's her dc at weekends and she gets slagged off quite a lot for it, even by people who are supposed to be her friends.

I don't know if it's biology but I know there's no way I could be away from my child all week every week I just couldn't. I would walk miles if I had to to see him. Where as my dp is abit meh about seeing his daughter and my ex also seems happy to go quite some time with no contact with his child.

My ex and I have 50/50 residency and shared care of our child - and it was agreed that, in the event of a split, that is what happened before we got married. In fact, having a child was conditional (on his part) on my agreeing that. Some people may think that it is morbid to discuss that before deciding to get married, but hey no-one wants to make a will either, and it wasn't just that we fully discussed but all aspects of our values and beliefs about raising a child and what we'd aim to do from childbirth options, breastfeeding, discipline etc.

It's tough not having my child 50% of the time, it really is, but I made a commitment to my ex and, even if I hadn't, I could never take that time away from my child. My ex was, and is, an outstanding and extremely committed father from the first minute who completely pulled his weight though.

Pregnancy is not always planned and it's not always possible to control or predict life circumstances, but I think it's very important, if you are in a position to TTC and make a conscious choice about planning that as far as possible, all these issues are raised and discussed beforehand.

90% of contact/residence decisions are made between the couples themselves, and never reach a court (though in turn 30% of that figure is made up of situations where one parent has no contact at all, and for various reasons never challenges it legally). So blaming the courts for the fact mothers are usually primary carers seems a bit disingenous - it's something couples decide, most of the time, though you can't rule out how much it costs to take legal action as a disincentive, either. Interestingly, though there absolutely are mothers who contact block for all they're worth without reason, more mothers want increased contact than want less, according to a recent study.

The courts favour the status quo, so the parent who took primary responsibility and/or did most of the care prior is likely to carry on doing so after a split. It's not about what adults want or need if it gets that far; it's about what is seen as least disruptive for the kids. Interestingly a recent (2008, Hunt) study on parental satisfaction after the court process found that more fathers than mothers, by a narrow margin, were happy with it. I'd be really interested in seeing the breakdown of how many fathers who apply for residence actually get it, tbh, though without knowing what proportion were main carers before the figure is harder to give weight to, anyway. But the stats do show that 46% of those applying for residence through the courts are fathers, and 44% mothers. That's a higher proportion of women than I expected - be really interesting to know what underlies that figure in terms of circumstances. Fathers tend to apply a lot more for contact than residence.

I do sometimes see threads on MN where a man is at home with the kids and the woman unhappy and she's advised to LTB, by telling him to go. And it always faintly puzzles me that nobody seems aware that he's the one who would probably succeed in forcing her out, if it came to legal action. But there is a large amount of data which demonstrates that couples revert to traditional gender roles after kids arrive; Dad "helps" and "looks after the kids for" Mum. Not always, but really often. I imagine maternity leave sets that pattern up to an extent and it then rolls that way, but it also happens in countries without great maternity provision. It seems cultural expectations are really powerful because it seems to happen even in households that were very equal in domestic labour division before kids arrived.

It's true a lot of men would be horrified by primary care. But it's also true that a lot are devastated by losing that day to day intimacy with their kids. It's a real dilemma, because 50/50 care, as they have automatically in a Nordic country which presently escapes me, obviously has massive advantages... but it can leave the kids feeling desperately unsettled and as though they don't really belong in either home, and that's apparently worse if there are younger siblings of the new relationships who are there all the time. Sadly there's no perfect answer (and often no financial way to create two homes big enough to be suitable for the kids as more than a weekend break, either).

It's a real problem, I think. One without easy answers.

yetanother that's such a nice post to read. I think it's easy to forget how many parents do their absolute best for their kids after a split, because so often you hear/see the horror stories - the functional are unobtrusively getting on with life.

I love dd with all my heart, but there are MANY occasions where I'm sat on my own on the Sofa while she's asleep thinking about ExH out drinking with his buddies without worrying about having to get up for night wakings or the fact that dd thinks 5:45am in getting up time!!!

This is what scares me about splitting up. You summed it up perfectly.

My DP is the resident parent. His ex-W dips in and out when it suits her, but they have never had overnights or full days with her.

Men, on the whole, complain about having to pay CSA and women, on the whole, complain about their exes not caring for their children properly - sometimes neglect (in my case), sometimes abuse

Spot the difference.

My exb lied to me to convince me to try for dd2(dd1previous relationship),relationship very rocky since conception(more lies),he was going to be such a brilliant dad,sees dd(18 mths)all of 5hrs a week,even though I've been very bad with PND for months.given the choice,I would not be resident parent,but I've never been offered one

Most men I know are selfish and wouldn't not give up their time to solely look after their children. Men change when they split from my experience. Mine was very hands on but now no longer wants to see DS because he gets in the way of his cosy, child free life with woman he left me for.

Because society makes it far easier and more socially acceptable for fathers to abandon their kids without a backward glance.

The majority of NRF don't pay any maintenance. At all. Not one penny.

I agree hidden. Big difference!

I've known both situations, bad mothers and bad fathers, those who worked out the arrangements dependent on who was the SAHP in the first place and those who just went along with the "norm". Sadly, I think it is seen as the "norm" for the mother to become the residential parent, partly because in most cases she will be the one who has stayed at home with the children, sometimes because that's the way HE wants it (finds it easier to dip in and out) and sometimes because that is the way SHE wants it (for whatever reason). Also, the older the children, the more common it seems for Dad to get residential custody, with many children in my experience moving into Dad's when they are old enough to choose for themselves.

I beg to differ hiddenhome, you certainly do. My DH had a 50/50 agreement, he was a lower wage earner than DSS mother, and he still had to pay CS. Because he is not in receipt of the child benefit, so he is not the PWC.
PorkPieandPickle This is changing though under the new CSA rules (2012). For truly 50/50 shared care there is no maintenance payable, although it is true that getting CB can be used to get some.

My ex partner doesn't even send ds pocket money, phone top ups, comics or a lousy bar of chocolate

This is the 'man' who was adamant he wanted residence and used to brow beat me about how I'd struggle to raise ds. Surprise, surprise, guess who solely provides for and has raised ds successfully without any help or input from the other parent? Guess which parent used to put him at risk of anaphylactic shock every time he visited by neglecting his allergy diet?