Why did I read this??

[coffeeeandtv]

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4994118/Women-destroying-marriage.html

Ok I’m really sorry to share total BS.... I stupidly read this.... TV is rubbish too tired for a film.... no more excuses and I’am so disappointed that the Daily fail thinks that this is an accepted article to print..... I bet the women are queuing up to date him 😂.

It just doesn't inspire as much sympathy as a MAN being asked to take on the entire financial portion of parenting, does it...

In fact, is he even doing that? He's providing free board for his child and childs' mother, but the property is still his, and we don't know if the child support covers everything his child needs. Her story is probably a very different one.

Again though what is the mother doing to pay for her child's needs? Nothing? Why is it 100% the mans responsibility to provide everything the child needs whilst not even being able to live with his child anymore?

But presumably he doesn't want to live with his child? Otherwise he would have 50/50 shared residency surely.

If the mother agrees and the courts give it. Which is rare. At that age. How about dad takes the kid and lives in the house, mum works and pays for them all and her own flat too?

No?

Why not? Why ok for the woman then?

If you have a child, you have to provide for them, whether you are married or divorced.
If your child is only 3 and your parents have divorced, then their main carer looking after them is normally in the best interests of the child.
And that is what decisions should be based on,w hat is best for the child. So yes the main carer usually gets to stay in the family home with the child.

If you don't care about your child and want to bleat on about having less money now you are divorced, I have no time for you at all.

NikiBabe If the dad gets full custody, that is exactly what happens when a child is so young. Except few dads want to be the sole carers. And courts are not anti men as is being made out. They are pro children. They will decide what is best for the child. As they should.

Yes of course that would be fine, if that was what the status quo was in the relationship. The sex of the parent is not relevant, it's what their roles have been up till the point of divorce.

When it comes to deciding residency, I don't think that the mother has the power to agree or disagree with what the court orders (assuming it goes to court).

He didn’t appear to have a problem with his own Mum not working.

He claims that’s a good thing and was perfectly acceptable for his parents

I do think that women who choose not to work put themselves in a vulnerable position. It's great when it is all going well, but if it all falls apart, then it can go very wrong. I don't think either partner should have a right to stay in any house - property should be sold upon divorce and settlement completed and both parties responsible for finding their own new accommodation. Children don't need to stay in one home for their entire childhood, and you are adding another layer of complexity and resentment to what is already a difficult situation. Make a clean break, pay child support as required, but don't have a property hanging around for 10+ years.

I also believe that pre-nuptial agreements should be compulsory. I had one with my now-exh, and when we split, there were no arguments because we had already agreed to what we would do 'just in case'. If people were forced to look at the practical realities whilst everything is still in the sunshine and roses phase, then some relationships would be very different. If you can't make an agreement whilst everything is going well, you aren't going to be able to make one when it all goes tits up.

Needed a good laugh, thanks

Love how he thinks his parents marriage was perfect. Father worked, mother stayed at home. Very traditional.

Also love the bit where men are bereft when divorce happens and women feel liberated. Maybe that’s the clue to who was the arsehole.

I imagine he’ll stay single.

She can get a job when he goes to school though. When he is 4.

Yes, because getting a job that fits in seamlessly with school times and holidays is that easy [sceptical]

Yes, because getting a job that fits in seamlessly with school times and holidays is that easy [sceptical]

You do know that there are millions of women who manage to work full time and still parent their children, right?

property should be sold upon divorce and settlement completed and both parties responsible for finding their own new accommodation. Children don't need to stay in one home for their entire childhood, and you are adding another layer of complexity and resentment to what is already a difficult situation. Make a clean break, pay child support as required, but don't have a property hanging around for 10+ years.

This ^^

I agree with everything everyone has written, as partners /Mums, as a collective we believe that it is the joint responsibility of both parents to raise the children and provide for their needs both financially and emotionally but within that article it was only giving this mans perspective and his opinion only as none of us know the true reason why his friends divorced not actual proven facts.
Some ex wives are tarred with the lazy greedy brush despite evidence to the contrary, so come on Daily Fail, why don’t you read this post and see that us ladies actually condemn the women who take advantage of their exes and the vast majority of women work very hard to provide for their families as do most men in the unfortunate event of divorce and separation.

You forget what the DM thinks of women generally, and that they want to court controversy for clicks. They're never going to write an even handed factual article about divorce and child support.

You do know that there are millions of women who manage to work full time and still parent their children, right?

Yes I do. This couple decided that she would be a SAHM and the only reason for the change is the divorce. It is easier for children and parents with a SAHP - if that is what the parent wants to do. The judge clearly decided that the ex could afford to support the SAHP and decided that it was in the best interests of the child.

And I know I have stepped into where angels fear to tread by suggesting that it is is easier to parent children when not working.