To think when a couple with kids separate: the woman usually gets the raw deal

[Mammylamb]

Just that every couple I’ve seen separate in my adulthood; the woman seems to have to take up all the slack of bringing up the kids, and the man just seems to get away with looking after them once a week, getting on with their own life the rest of the time

I would agree, yes.

YANBU

It’s because one parent cares and the other usually doesn’t. Or that the kids are young and need mom. My husband has been home with us since day one so if we separated it would be 50/50 as we both love our children and aren’t petty cunts

Flip side- is it not a raw deal to only see your kids every other weekend? Surely the “better” side is to see your kids more often?

I honestly don’t see full time with my kids as a “raw deal” and if the dad didn’t want to be involved more than that I would be happy so that they could get on with life without him

It depends on your outlook. If my ex tried to take my kids and leave me with 2 weekends a month, I would fight him tooth and nail. I want my kids with me. I don't want them being raised by someone else whilst I "get on with my own life".

If you're saying that it should be 50/50 then I get it, but that's often just not possible once kids are in school and need a permanent base during the week, especially if parents live in different towns. If the choice was between having them the most or having them the least, I would fight for the most.

It used to be said that the Courts favoured Women.

Favoured or lumbered? would be my reply.

We set our society up as it is and we haven't favoured women in any shape or form, throughout time.

I agree with pp. living with my kids is a not a raw deal.

Totally agree. Dont forget the lasting impact on your career and pension too. Deadbeat dads sadly seem to be more and more common.

No not always
My fella had to go to court to see his kids as she decided to punish him by stopping him seeing them ( loving dad married 10 years )
He would do anything to see them more

I call it the great end of the deal. Living with your kids. Not in a sad Dad flat being a sad Dad.

My career and pension are doing just fine, and I get to live with my children and have all the wonderful things that brings. I would never want to give that up. I havnt been lumbered. I havnt been given a raw deal.

I consider having my children with me as winning at life. He is only interested in seeing them one day a week, but I don't envy him. I don't wish I had his life and all that time alone. I want my kids. I think he is missing out on a lot more than I am.

Yikes I don’t know about raw deal - sounds horrible!

My ex sil has the kids 50:50 so it’s pretty split down the middle.

If me and DH separate I hope to get this 'raw deal', maybe an even more 'raw deal' of him only having them once every other weekend.

Realistically I'd get the actual raw deal of 50% because he's not a bad dad. Right now I cannot imagine not seeing my children for 50% of the time. If I could only see them once a week I'd find that really really awful.

Och ... my DH exW stopped him from having 50/50 access when he first left the exW. The exW behaviour was disgusting and she clearly used the children as weapons. There is always 3 sides to a story, her truth, his truth and the actual truth. You have made a general statement that all men are the same.

I think YANBU in that its almost always the mum who has the kids the majority of the time. I can only think of one separated couple where that's not the case.

I think YABU to assume this is always mum 'losing' and dad 'winning'. My DH lost his family, his home, slept on a family members couch for several months so that his daughter could keep her home, seemed to lose all parental rights, and was suffering from depression trying to fight his ex through the lawyers for fair access when I first met him. He didn't 'get on' with his life, he had to completely rebuild it.

Tbh, I think in most cases, everyone 'loses' really when a family breaks down. No-one can really 'win', least of all the children.

No I have met some really manipulative women who use the men and the kids. But the men may not be good either but were def getting the raw deal.

Until you walk in other peoples shoes don't judge. A reasonable amount of women deliberately engineer keeping the children whether for financial or other reasons. That's their choice, but the courts and the internet have made 50/50 childcare all about money for some people rather than about parenting. They aren't getting the raw deal, the other parent is.

Some of these replies are reminding me of my DD's dad telling me - upon cancelling yet another fortnightly contact at v short notice - that I, rather than responding to his text "should be making the most of the extra time with your daughter" !!!

It’s one of the reasons I’m staying childfree. I don’t want to compromise my sleep, freedom and career by getting lumbered with looking after children. DH and I both got sterilised in our 20s so we can have peace of mind.

We set our society up as it is and we haven't favoured women in any shape or form, throughout time.

I have to say I agree with this.

also with the idea that everyone gets a bit of a hard deal when a family breaks up - including the children. But it might be a far better deal than staying together.

Young children need their fathers just as much as they need their moms

No the raw deal would be not seeing my son everyday. I don't see being the main carer as a raw deal. I think the parent that doesn't get to see their child(ren) everyday gets the raw deal

That when I realised how lucky I am to be a woman. The idea of someone else bringing up my daughter, the horror.

Generally mums spend more time looking after the kids. So the courts award residence to the mum. Courts tend to favour keeping as much the same for the kids as possible.