Should it be 50/50 by law?

[Iamnotagoddess]

In Germany apparently it’s both (separated) parents equal responsibility to ferry the children to and from the NRP house to the RP house. To me this actually seems pretty fair.

I separated from both my kids dads and one was local and did all the ferrying and the other is about 20 miles away and I always offer to meet halfway.

DH kids live a 5 hour journey (round trip) away and we always try to ask his ex to meet about 30 mins away from her to shorten the journey a bit, but she won’t, and it always ends in a row (between them) and is stressful.

I did the trip last time and (unbeknown to me) she said to DH she could meet me nearby her house but shortening the journey for me but wouldn’t give a time. She then had a huge go at DH saying I should be “fucking grateful” that she was “helping me out” and if I didn’t like it I could do the whole journey and stuff me basically (I ended up doing the whole journey and getting stuck in holiday traffic and it took me 7 hours). I do this journey a lot but her attitude has made me feel reluctant to do it anymore.

AIBU to think within reason both parents should be physically and financially responsible for the children having access to a relationship with the other parent, and it should be a given and part of being a separated parent?

if the NRP does decide to do 50/50 care, they can claim maintenance is not payable,leaving the RP picking up the costs of clothing, school lunches, activities etc

if they were really doing 50/50 there wouldn't be a RP or NRP they would just parent equally and pay for uniform / lunches / activities / childcare on their own time.

I think it needs to be case by case, probably decided in court. On paper I would say it should be the person that moved, but then there will always be situations where they had to go back to their parents because of the financial implications of splitting, couldn't afford rent solo in the area they used to cohabit etc. There are situations that involve abuse to think about, as well.

There's moving just for the hell of it (or even to spite the other parent) and then there are perfectly valid reasons they had no choice, and you need to consider which it is before saying the person who moved should pay, or it should be 50/50.

I do however disagree with the notion that parents should be forced to live within a certain distance of each other until the kids grow up. They should be able to make that decision for themselves and if they would rather prioritise pursuing their career or whatever it is that means they have to move a long way away and travel to see their kids, then they have every right to do so.

@changedtempforprivacy yes that’s fair enough - everyone’s situation is different and should be managed accordingly. In my situation DH is paying what most ppl would consider a wage, BM (who is a SAHM through choice) is moving away and refusing to help with travel.

At one end of the financial spectrum I knew one lady who moved a long way from London with the children and her ex stayed in London, remarried, had more children and he bought a second house near jhsi first lost of children and would stay in it at least every weekend - his new wife and baby/toddlers came up too and his older children could pop over for a few hours or the weekend. That meant he was not having to stay in London hotels and there was a more permanent base up there - however most families cannot afford to have 3 houses!

It’s far too complex an issue with too many variables between families to have a blanket rule. Each family has to find what works for them but unfortunately it won’t always work for both parties and sometimes it doesn’t work for either party but it’s the only way that it can be.