to think it's unfair how women hold all the cards in a situation like this?

[chickendhansak]

Yes I know there are plenty of deadbeat dads who don't step up, don't pay anything, barely see their DC, treat them as an inconvenience. Been there, got the tshirt etc.

But for the ones who do...the ones who want to spend as much time as they can with their DC, who pay all they should (and more), it still feel like they get the sticky end of the lollipop. Seeing the kids on Xmas and birthdays only if the XW agrees, missing out on all the everyday stuff because they can't see them every day. And having to the possibility when the XW starts a new relationship, of some bloke getting to spend more time with their kids than they spend with their own father.

I don't know what the solution is, I just think it's bloody hard, especially if it's the woman's decision to break up the family in the first place.

no they don't - the courts can and do - you seem rather anti women and it's a very simplistic view - yabu

Courts do not favour mothers - they favour children. Courts believe it is in the interests of the children to have contact with both parents, however they favour a 'continuity of the status quo' for the children too. So if the mother does the majority of the childcare within the marriage, then this will continue if the marriage breaks down.

Women do not hold all the cards at all - in fact they are frequently left on low incomes after the breakdown of a marriage, having given up work/gone part time in order to look after children. According to gingerbread, only 2/5 fathers pay any maintenance for their children. Encouraged, no doubt, by such charming campaigns like f4j "I'm a dad not a cashpoint".

Well, it's hard. But I think it's statistically true that men 'walk out' more than women. I think it's statistically true that men don't continue to support their children when a relationship breaks down more often than women. I do think that society favours the woman's rights to see her children, and that there are a fair few men who end up getting the short end of the stick because of that.

But I'm not sure that much more than is already done can be done about that, and it does interest me that it's such a hot topic for MRA etc, as it's one of the few areas I can think of where men aren't automatically favoured in a sort of 'society's norms' way.

Obviously when I'm saying 'favoured' I don't want to imply that lone female parents have an easy time. Just to be clear.

I disagree wholeheartedly OP - it is all down to the people involved, not their gender.

Up until recently, I shared 50/50 care with my stbxh and I work FT whilst he was the SAHP. I didn't have to fight for this - we both recognised that our children would benefit from this arrangement and neither of us had any desire to use out children as bargaining chips. Coming to terms with seeing my children for only half their life was one of the hardest things I have ever had to accept but, as a pp pointed out, it is what is best for the children which takes precedence.

Oh, and he left me so made himself the NRP despite his previous SAHP role..

It's clearly unfair when either parent uses their DC as a bargaining tool. I agree that it's not exclusively women who do that, but as the DC are mostly with them, it's easier to control a situation, make arrangements for DC etc.

I'm not anti women. I am a woman. I'm anti anyone who takes advantage of a situation/societal presumption/ whatever to tailor things to their benefit/ the disadvantage of the other parent.

My DP, a close friend and a family member are all dads in this kind of shitty situation. I see first hand the pain it causes them, and how they feel they have little choice but to go along with what their XWs say, accept the crumbs they offer, etc.

So what is your suggestion OP? My partner and I have recently split for good after a previous 6 month separation. I want my son to see his dad every day, and that is what happened during our previous separation for the most part. But I don't think it's practical for the long term. My ex always said if we split again that wouldn't be the case. He thinks it's 'weird' to spend that much time together.

Once my son was around 10 months he started having him every weekend for overnight visits, but again I recognise this leaves him working all week and looking after his son all weekend. He needs time off as well, a day somewhere just to decompress. Is the answer for him to have our son for a couple of days midweek one week then for the weekend the next?

I don't think 50/50 is a good idea personally. It seems a very unsettling existence to me to have to constantly shift between houses. I know I wouldn't like it. But I can't comprehend of my son and my ex not seeing each other all the time. It is such a heartbreaking situation.

Trenchcoat, if you are both willing to be flexible then you will work something out. What suits you all will change as your ds gets older, so whatever arrangement you have for now can change when needs be as long as you and your ex communicate. It helps if you live near each other.

If you stick around on MN you'll see exactly how many men use children as bargaining tools. How many feel entitled to not fulfil their parental responsibilities. How many expect to still control their exes and children through finances and abusive behaviour.

You'll also see how so many women bend over backwards trying to get their exes engaged with their children. Trying to get money that is owed their children.

Why are you not up in arms about that OP. They are far more common scenarios.

As a pp said if they did 50/50 share before splitting up then they'd get 50/50 responsibility after they split. And no it's not that simple. Because it would involve men giving up their status and privilege to raise children, just like women do.

I said in my OP I didn't know what the answer is. I really don't.

I think if both parents play ball, then it can make the best of a shitty situation. But that doesn't always happen.

My DP has his children 1/2 nights in the week and every other weekend. He physically can't have them any more due to work. He struggles with not seeing them every day, but more so because he knows nothing about their life when they're not with him, his X won't tell him anything about school/nursery, or discuss any arrangements with him, so he can't arrange anything in advance because she never responds til the last minute. His DC are too little to always remember to tell him stuff themselves.

So he is seeing his children and he can't see them any more because of his work? So how is she holding all the cards? Because she doesn't discuss school/nursery stuff? What's to stop him finding this stuff out for himself?

So did he consider being a SAHP or going part time whilst with his ex to look after his children? Or even now?

And why are you posting on here? Why isn't he sorting it out or asking advice?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm well aware there are plenty of feckless men. My X is one. I have never tried to get any money out of him because its pointless. I've never tried to impose regular contact because he's unreliable. I've just given him chances and kept him informed, told him when parents evenings are, DC concerts, whatever. I do appreciate though I'm in a lucky position, I knew my DC would stay with me. I never had to worry once I decided to end our relationship that I'd lose my DC, end up rarely seeing them, not knowing what they were doing etc.

As for the 'men should do 50%' stuff, I agree if both parties are working similar hours. But how on earth can they if one parent works Ft and the other doesn't work at all? Yes some women might be coerced into giving up work to raise their DC. But by no means all.

He can and does get info from the school/nursery, but it's limited. And he's not there at drop off/pick up, he doesn't get to chat to his DC every evening and pick up bits of info he would from living in the same house or from his XW sharing info with him. Surely that's not too hard to comprehend?

He can't work pt because he has a mortgage and maintenance to pay. Working pt was never an option before because his XW wanted to be at home.

As for sorting it out he, much like my friend I mentioned upthread, and a family member, has had legal advice, lots of it. And there's not much to be done, he, well all of them in fact, just have to keep bending over backwards to be nice and accommodating in the hope that they eventually get some consideration back. And that their XWs don't move someone else in who gets to see their DC more than they do :(

What do you mean two wrongs don't make a right ? What is your partner's ex doing wrong? Or for that matter what did he do wrong?

The fact it is nearly always the woman giving up her income and almost never the man isn't a phenomena that happens in a vacuum. Your partner traded time with the children for an income. And that's fair enough. He also had that choice. But it takes time & effort to raise children. His ex is providing both those. You've said yourself he won't.

It's just amazing not really how it's always the men who seem to 'choose' to continue their lives without any break in income or status. If men wanted to do more of the childcare then they would engineer their lives more centrally around children.

And his ex is perfectly entitled to continue her life with a new partner. That last sentence sounds incredibly controlling. As if it is some kind of competition.

Seriously his ex doesn't sound like she is doing anything wrong so I'm not sure what he's got to complain about.

And that their XWs don't move someone else in who gets to see their DC more than they do

Are XW's not allowed to cohabit in a new relationship then?

If men want to ensure they have 50/50 access to their children when their relationship breaks down, then they have to put the work in before the split. By doing 50/50 of raising their children. Properly. By taking 50% of the parental leave (this is allowed by law). By cutting back their hours/going part time/working flexibly when they return to work. By knowing the name of their child's teacher, what day they go to Beavers, what time to collect them, having their PE kit ready, paying lunch money, RSVPing to the party invitations and then buying the card and present. You know, all those things that they are generally perfectly happy to leave to their wife while they're together, and still call themselves a fully involved parent.

If you want to be fully involved when you're no longer with your child's mother, be fully involved while you're still with her. By making the same career sacrifices, doing the same mental and physical busywork and never, ever thinking that any part of raising your child isn't your problem.

OP - how about your DP's exW's job? Does she get to say she can't have the DC most of the week because of her work? I'll bet not. I'll bet she just has to make the hours fit, somehow, no matter how much is damages her career. How much effort has be put into rearranging his working life to spend more time with them? A lot less than she has, I'll bet.

Men have a choice to say to their DWs "sorry, I don't want you to be a SAHM, I want an equal chance to be a SAHD or for us both to work part time."

But they don't.

While most women aren't coerced into being SAHMs and quite enjoy it, they tend to stay in that role because their DHs are quite happy to work long hours and focus on their careers, and someone has to take up the domestic slack.

Until men stop expecting women to raise their children for them, they can't complain when they don't get to be resident parent.

I think both parents should contribute financially to a home.

It's such bollocks to say women are all oppressed into giving up work, when the reality is there are loads of women who want to be SAHM, to have a husband who earns enough that they don't have to work. The husbands in those situations don't get a say.

Possibly I'm lucky in that in my family, women are expected to earn their own money and not depend on a man or the state. Hence I've always worked, and it would never have occurred to me not to do so even when I was with my X and we could have managed without my income.

I think it's unfair to move a new partner in to a house with young children. If you think that's fine, put yourself in the position of a nrp. You embarked on a relationship, got married, to raise children together, now your Xs new partner gets to put your DC to bed all the nights you're not with them. Spend more time with them than you do. And you'd think that was ok? I highly doubt it.

I never wanted that for my DC. Hence I won't be living with my DP til my DC go off to college/ university.

So you don't consider all that time and effort his ex put in looking after their children as a contribution to the household, worthy of a financial equivalence.

She doesn't have to consider your partner beyond the children. The fact you think she should be considering him is again, incredibly controlling.

What you do with your life is entirely up to you. Other people don't have to live by your script.

And yes some women choose to be SAHM. But that choice doesn't happen in a vacuum. Society is geared that way. Social conditioning is geared that way.

There's a lot of misogyny in your posts.

So what are these two wrongs then?

My DP, like many other men, has worked hard over the years to develop a career literally from the bottom up. His XW worked when they met, but reduced her hours after they got married and then stopped work once DC came along. She wasn't prepared to return to work, or discuss it. That being the case, you make the best of it. And then when the relationship fails for other reasons, the working parent comes off worst.

Not everyone can work flexibly etc btw, certainly not when you're in construction trades etc.

I meant that just because some men are crap fathers doesn't mean women are entitled to take advantage of the decent ones.

It's hardly controlling to not want another person spending more time with your DC than you do. I notice you've not answered that question. Because no-one would like that.

I won't move anyone in here because despite him being a useless father, I can still see it would be unfair to my X and cause him pain. I wouldn't do that to someone else, i like to think I'm a better person than that. Hence why I've never excluded him from the DCs lives, and given him every chance to see them.

Annie, that was a fantastic post.

I'm beyond fed up with how much of parenting(which is so often done by women) is invisible - or rendered invisible. I'm beyond fed up with the fact that the subtle coercion a that lead to women ending up doing the bulk of that invisible work are rewritten as women sponging and unfairly stealing money and children from men. I'm totally fed up with what is mostly men - as a class - failing to actively put work in as parents being rewritten as men having their fatherhood stolen from them.

What is invisible is men's -as a class - agency in this state of affairs: so many of them are still choosing to obstruct any real equality in the sharing of parenting and paid work . They choose through all their non-engagement in active resistance.

It drives me mad.

Believe me, you don't 'stop work' if you have kids.
You just stop PAID work.

There's a massive, massive difference there.

Really? He still has an income, a career and status, a house. Doesn't sound like he's worse off at all.

And yy to the not being prepared to work and wouldn't even discuss it heard it all before.

So what were the two wrongs again?

I have always worked non-family-friendly hours because of my profession and used a combination of different types of childcare arrangements, because I had to.

I don't see why a man couldn't do the same if he chose to.

Who looks after the children whilst both parents work?

I am always at the attitudes of childless friends wrt this. They just don't 'see' it - the power of the invisibility of parent-work is THAT strong.

So many threads on mumsnet where the shock at the reality of paying to continue working: years of them.

Your discourse of 'taking advantage' really quit shockingly seeks to obscure and reverse what is actually a situation whereby predominantly women are systematically disadvantaged.

It's annoying.