Mums v Dads

[Mitzicoco]

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

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

There has to be some sort of dictating in place as when you have children you put them in clubs, make plans, book things in advance. The NRP can’t just say oh I’ll come pick them up today ... without giving it a second thought if they actually have plans!!

Also I don’t agree with 50:50 after divorce UNLESS the care was 50:50 whilst married, which in my experience I’ve never ever known that! My daughters dad wanted 50:50 ..... once she was at school!!! Funny how the first 5 years of £1000 a month nursery and pick ups and drop offs landed on me.

If money was absolutely no object then I think the absolutely ideal situation would be the children staying in one house and the parents taking turns to spend time there with them.

In Belgium I understand that 50/50 is the place you start when working out child care. In my experience (not in Belgium) court systems can be very maternal-focussed and so when a father believes he is the better resident parent or ‘just’ wants 50/50 he has a lot more proving to do.

Surely in a divorce the important thing is lessening the impact on the children. So that normally means keeping to what lifestyle they had before as far as possible. Its not about what is seen as ideal. If dads wanted 50 50 on divorce that would be fine if they had done 50 50 previously. But if they had spent most week days working too long to do pick up or drop off and spent Saturdays hungover after seeing their friends and sundays doing their hobby and only spent half a day a week actually seeing their child pre divorce, why should they suddenly get to change the children's routines etc to see them half the time?

@GettingABitDesperateNow this 🙌 this is always my argument! My husband even says now I do 90% of the childcare so if we ever did split up so long as he had a relationship with his child and saw them regularly he wouldn’t want to change what he’s always known! Unfortunately some people don’t think like that and it’s all about what they can get

50/50 isn't great. The dc don't 'belong' anywhere.

Sometimes it works excellently but that's with parents who co parent and get on well enough.

If DH and I were to split the kids would stay with me. I dont work and he is away 3 nights a week and for longer trips at least 6 times a year (ie abroad for a week or more). Generally speaking more women work reduced hours or not at all and therefore do the bulk of the childcare. If circumstances are different then custody will take account of it.

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?

Well, yes. Plenty of things are very wrong and result in women doing the bulk of caring for children, and also for elderly and disabled relatives. Speaking generally, men don't pull their weight across society and separation is just one of the things that shines a light on it.

If all men did half of the caring, then all custody arrangements would be 50/50.

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?

I work for myself in this country. Ex-DH works internationally including attending events. 50/50 wouldn’t work for us. What our arrangement doesn’t is (a) ensures he earns enough to be able to pay maintenance and not work full time and (b) spend quality time with her when he isn’t away.

* 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? *
In this ideal world both parents would have an equal relationships with their children to start with, do equal amounts of the drudge work, take equal hits to their career, etc. In that case 50/50 should be, and generally is, the default.

Otherwise no.

My ex doesn’t even want to see the kids we have together (and hasn’t seen them in 2 years) so that’s why.

My son stayed with his Dad in posh country house, not in my council house!

50-50 custody is usually not in a child's best interest for practical reasons. It's not like sharing ownership of an inanimate object that you can FedEx between cities. The RP doesn't have to be the mom (or a mom if there are two) but they ought to be the person (or care arrangement) that would be the best option for the child. Also: this is not and never will be an "ideal" world. There is no utopia.

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

Yes.
50/50 splits with custody don't suit everyone and can be very disruptive for children.
Mothers usually do most of the raising, the donkey work, the cooking, cleaning, reading, homework, going to kids birthday parties and organising present etc, know who their children's friends are, how to contact them for play dates etc. Whereas an alarming number of men couldn't tell you what school year their child is in. I'm talking from experience as someone who works in a school and has seen their fair share of Mum v Dad dynamics.

If dad's think that mums being primary carers is unfair then they should be more hands-on parents what they're still together.

50/50 is more common in Sweden where I come from, but then dads being SAHPs is also more common, or parents sharing childcare in more equal ways. It is not a given thing that it is the mother, 's career that has to take a hit. Also the families I know there for whom 50/50 have worked have gone to very great lengths to put the children first, like making sure they stay close to each other even if it does make subsequent relationships harder.

Me and my ex share 50/50 custody of our DD. It works perfectly for us. My ex is an amazing dad and my DD wants to spend just as much time with him as she does me. I know this will change as she gets older but for now it works for us.

50/50 is not in the best interest of the children if parents can’t work together. And with 50/50 how much is actually done 50/50? And not one parent the mother still doing all the emotion labour, like booking appointments.

Because he was always a lot for work, my job is more flexible. The children can continue their lives in the family home, as close to what went before as possible. Keeping things normal day to day is important for them. Please note my job is more flexible because I took huge pay cut to work around children.

@CarolDanvers

See early posts with such gems as

"Good proportion of dads have no interest"

"Because the dads don't want the hassle"

If me and DH split at least initially he would stay in the house with DS and I could live with my Dad 20 mins walk away. We do parent 50/50 at the moment though and both went part time when DS was born.

If you make it 50:50 when it isn’t usually 50:50 - that makes it unfair on the child completely.

Children come first.

*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?

Well, yes. Plenty of things are very wrong and result in women doing the bulk of caring for children, and also for elderly and disabled relatives. Speaking generally, men don't pull their weight across society and separation is just one of the things that shines a light on it.

If all men did half of the caring, then all custody arrangements would be 50/50.*

This.

@itwasalovelydreamwhileitlasted

It's true though. That's why stats show that the majority of lone parents are women and a significant proportion of men leave relationships and then have no contact with or financially support their children so 🤷‍♀️

Your attitude is all wrong. It’s not mums v dads. it’s about what’s best for the children. If you want 50:50 when you split, then start off your child’s life by doing 50 percent. It’s wrong to do 10%, then whinge when a court decides it’s best for the child to remain with their primary caregiver.

I think it very much depends on the family and parents.
I do agree that for the most part the primary carer has resident parent arrangement. Although this often means that the bulk of most responsibilities and financial matters such as clothes, trips, clubs, nurseries/ child care falls on the resident parent as a whole.
I am in a slightly different arrangement that my step children are with us full time and mum has minimal access (but as a whole we are very normal to a mum and step dad with a wayward father in contact/maintenance)

I know it seems unfair but I don't think 50 50 is great unless both parents are 100% committed to the kids.