Mums v Dads

[Mitzicoco]

Genuine question. Why is it that most children end up living with their mums when parents seperate?

Because usually the mother is the primary carer of the children.

Should that dictate who spends time with who though? Looking forward?

Of course it should. It's in the interests of the children to be with their primary carer the most and to have regular contact with their other parent.

I'll also add that a good proportion of dads (not all) have no interest in looking after their children full time.

Should that dictate who spends time with who though? Looking forward?

I’d say definitely, yes. Divorce is hard enough of children. Drastically reducing the time they spend with the primary carer, the person who is with them most and does most for/with them is going to cause even more trauma.

Because the dads don't want the hassle?

It's actually the primary carer.

Dp and his sisters stayed with their father.

They stay with the primary carer, which makes perfect sense. My brother's kids stayed with him. DH and I are fairly equal parents, I'd want 50/50 if we split.

Isn't it also a bit age dependent - an obvious point but Dads can't breast feed for example.

Lot of terrible generalisations about fathers on this post.....

Because MOST women are the primary carer by way of giving up work/working part time to look after going children because they largely earn less than men

BUT I know of several situations where custody was given to the father

where the children were of school age the presumption is a starting point of 50/50

It goes by what is in the best interests of the child and in most cases ot is in their best interests to spend the majority of their time with their primary carer as that is who they will feel most secure with, especially after the upheaval of a divorce.

In an ideal world, both parents would be supporting this in order to make things as stable for the children as possible without getting into an argument about what is/isn't fair. It's not about the adults, it's about the kids.

Mums who have none of their children living with them don't talk about it.

I grew up with children whose primary carer was their father and know families now where this is the case. The reason for this include children being old enough to make the choice where and who they want to live with, mum simply walking away, or the family house being in some sort of paternal family trust making it difficult for the mother to live in the house without the father.

I also knew and know children who have swapped who they live with normally once they hit secondary school. This can be simply due to dad living in a better catchment area for schools, mother getting a job with irregular hours, or the child causing lots of problems which the mother cannot cope with.

Something is wromg though, that it isn't 50/50. I know that is a massive generalisation but in an ideal world (which wouldn't have parents slpitting up in the first place!) shouldn't both parents have equal custody?

wrong

Lot of terrible generalisations about fathers on this post.....

Like what?

in an ideal world (which wouldn't have parents slpitting up in the first place!) shouldn't both parents have equal custody?

Not if it's not what's best for the children they shouldn't.

@Mitzicoco 50:50 isnt always best. Kids can often benefit from having one solid base.

Me and exh started with 50:50. Over the years the kids have ended staying with me more through choice. They like having one base near their schools and not sharing a house with exhs new girlfriend and children.

I agree with the poster that says mothers nor having their kids with them is talked about less.

Dps mum walked out while their dad was working away for the week left them in the house for 3 daya alone.

As I have got older I have come to know far more people who grew up with their father rather than their mother.

50 / 50 is a good starting point yes but in a lot of cases children barely see one parent.

Also what about finances? Women are usually the ones to earn less after childbirth so they don’t have the same opportunity to afford 50/50 and live without maintenance.

No, the RP / primary parent shouldn’t ‘dictate’ when the children sees the NRP.

The RP isn’t in charge, parents are equal.

Sadly though, many children do dictate, think they are in charge and use the children as weapons to control.

In an ideal world as little as possible changes for children. A lot of children don’t even see their non-caring parent during the working week.

@Tilltheendoftheline agree with the whole gf,bf potential stepdcs.

No one asked me if I wanted to be resident parent, my ex left, moved in with the ow and had a new baby (in less than a year). It was just assumed by him that our child would live with me and he would see them as and when he felt like it (probably less than 100 nights in almost 9 years). Obviously I'm glad I'm the resident parent and I love our child but it wasn't my decision, he wanted kids but doesn't want to actually raise/pay for them (he has 3 children now and it has been the same story each time, got bored, cheated and dumped the kids along with the ex). I would be fine with 50/50 but it's not something I was ever offered.

agree with the whole gf,bf potential stepdcs.

Dp lives with us. The difference was dps son is an adult so doesnt live with us. Thiugh we see him alot.

Also we all knew dp for a a good while before me and dp started dating. We dated, put an end to it. Remained friends
Dated again and didnt tell the kids until we knew it was serious. And then waited another 18 months before moving in.

Him moving in was a genuine family decision. Ds loves him being here as he he does alot with him, more than his dad does. Dp also went on parenting courses as ds has aspergers. My dd is older and happy with him here. Ds calls him his friend rather than mums boyfriend when he introduces him to his friends.

They have increased their time here a bit more since he moved in.

Their dad moved in with a woman and hee kids after 12 weeks of dating and didnr really introduce her until they all go a house together.

I thought the starting point was 50/50

To be fair though it can be hard for both parties to afford to support the family alone, often some maintenance needs paying which means one has to take more care

Just this morning I was thinking about a boy at school whose parents split up and took a child each! Isn’t that bonkers? Like pick one

Mums often change their working hours to part-time once their kids arrive. I don't know any Dads who work part-time.

In my experience the Dads who see their kids the most are self-employed so able to work around the kids more than a 9-5 working Dad.