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

@ChilledBee Oh I know, I couldn’t work for 3 years after we split as his contact was so sporadic (he worked all over the UK and at short notice), it was fucking awful. My MH was in the shit pan, I was alone most of the time. Going to a brick Uni was my only escape and only when I started my MA.

As for men paying hundreds The father of my youngest DC has fuck all to do with her, CMS couldn’t get money off him if he handed it to them, most incompetent useless bunch of cunts I’ve ever come across.

@Isitnearlyweekend men pay hundreds ha ha ha! Do you think kids only cost a few hundred?

I’m glad I have the kids 100% because I love them. But I’m sad their good for nothing dad has totally checked out of their lives - they have lost out there too.

Financially I have the raw deal. He can spend most of his earnings however he likes - my money goes on running a family. His couple of hundred quite doesn’t cover half. And he has walked off with a large lump sum.

Quid not quite.

Of course its the women in general getting the raw deal...that's how the patriarchy works.

Yes it would kill me to be without my kids every day but most men arent like that. They are relieved I know plenty of divorced dads and without exception they pretty much do fuck all. My xdh said I was jealous and bitter that I have them 29 days a month and he gets to do what he wants....
They never change and its the kids that are the real losers.

Women have the freedom to leave their partners, knowing that they don't have to worry about losing their kids.

Men who adore their kids are constantly vulnerable to losing them. If their partner meets someone else, or decides they've had enough of the relationship, the man doesn't just lose his partner, he loses his kids too.

Fortunately our marriage was happy. I know that my husband would have been devastated not to live with his kids.

I have to say I wouldn’t see having the main caring responsibilities for my children as the raw deal. I’d be loathed to hand them over, I can’t imagine having a whole weekend knocking about on my own without them.

@catspyjamas123 I know exactly how much kids cost. Over 20 years ago I married a man with a two year old son. We’ve always been lucky enough to have a friendly relationship with his ex. My husband always paid more than he needed to and his son is a lovely young man now who lives with us. We also have a child ourselves so I know how expensive they are. I’m sorry your ex has let you and his child down so badly.

It's the children who usually get the really raw deal.

To be honest, I prefer that. My ex is useless with my ds and I’d hate to think of ds in his full time care.
At least ds is encouraged with his homework, gets some fresh air, home cooked food rather than takeaways and doesn’t have to witness regular drunkenness. Ds sees his dad every week but will never have to rely on him, and is happy.

It isn’t always a bad thing. Perhaps the courts realise maternal instinct generally puts children before beer or the latest car on pcp.

I really don't understand why more people don't do 50:50?

With us, because he doesn’t want 50:50.If I ask him to attend a sports day or school play he looks at me like I have two heads and says “Of course I can’t, I’ll be at work.” I work full time too but I manage to get there.
It is his choice.

I’d say most pate ta don’t do for 50/50 because they don’t want to.
I know lots of single parents and can only think of one dad who would genuinely want this.
I also think a lot of women wouldn’t want this.
It is the children who get the raw end of the deal when things go wrong.
The best scenario for a child is to live with 2 parents who love and adore each other and love and adore their child.
Anything else is never as good.
I say this as a child from a broken home.

I only know Dads who want 50:50. My son is certainly seeing more of his Dad now we have separated. ExDH has changed work hours so that he can do this. Shame he didn't do this before we split. But it is doable. We have insisted that we must both live within close distance of DS school. He can see either of us easily, if he needs something that has been left at the others house etc.
And it is not what anyone would call an amicable split. But we are doing what is next best (best being we stayed together) for our child.

I'm confused, what's the raw deal? When I left my ex and got to keep the house and the kids except for a day a week, I thought I was the lucky one and my ex was getting the raw deal. I did feel sorry for him even though I had always been the main care taker, including all the not so much fun part of being a parent, but the rewards still meant that I was the lucky one.

It seems that too many mothers want their cake and eat it. They want to be the main carer because all in all, there are more benefits than pain being a main parent, and this comes with a lot of control, but also wants the freedom that comes with not being a main carer any longer. It doesn't work like this, you have one or the other, you can't have both.

What I don't get is if your ex and you were so upset he only had one day a week, why didnt you work together to make sure he had more? It isn't like the courts forbid that in most cases. He could have easily had them more times a week but you both opted to go with what the courts said, obviously, and/or he didnt want it enough to change his lifestyle.

Mammylamb

I know many women that would agree with you. But those same women are the ones that won't give up what they have got to give more time for the children with their exes.

All those being shocked at the idea of nearly full custody being described as a 'raw deal', I get it, but this:

I love my kids and I love being with h. But yes, if I divorced it would be me who had the kids, me arranging their social lives, my social life affected, my earning power diminished, my pension affected and he is also the biggest earner so living standards would drop as well. He would see them every second weekend maybe week on/week off but it would be me doing the lions share.

...is my life. My career has been HUGELY impacted by my divorce. Ex has skipped off and sees DS 4 days a month. Hasn't, in the four years since he's been gone, ever attended a parents evening, spoken to the school about any issues (there have been many), washed his socks or even taken his son on a weekly supermarket shop. I am EXHAUSTED doing the work of two people. Those posters clutching their pearls at the 'raw end' comment who aren't single parents - get in your fucking lane. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

From the title I was thinking your post must mean sees the children less. I’d rather have less free time and more time with the children.

Isitnearlytheweekend my ex pays me £500 a month out of his take home salary of £2k. He lives with his partner who earns similar. They have no DC living with them.

£500 a month is a good amount for one child, I'm happy with that and I get more than most women I know. But as my ex and his partner are bringing home over £3k a month between them AFTER he has paid maintenance, I can safely say he certainly isn't living in poverty.

@Waxonwaxoff0 I would agree 500 quid is a good amount. My hubby and I have always had well paid jobs and he paid his ex accordingly. It was all sorted between his ex and him and the csa as they were were never involved. She did try to get them involved after she had another child but they said hubby was overpaying by a considerable amount. She withdrew the involvement of them and he continued to pay the initial amount. He wanted to make sure his son was well provided for. My money was never taken into account which I thought was right. It’s quite a sad thread really. It’s the kids who suffer the most especially when things get bitter.

I really don't understand why more people don't do 50:50?

Working patterns don't always fit, particularly if someone works shifts or is working away from home a lot, young children don't always cope away from their main care giver, in my case I was breastfeeding when my ex walked out so 50/50 was utterly inappropriate in those circumstances. Older children often prefer a base-home from which to work - knowing where their school stuff is and not having to worry about doing homework at dad's on Monday but handing it in on Wednesday when they were at mum's on Tuesday night. Communication between parents is often poor following divorce which is not good if trying to share care as it really does require both parents to work together rather than against each other. Logistics of childcare and wrap around care - so if dad can have new partner looking after children and doing school pick ups but and mum can't on a week on/week off basis, mum ends up paying child care for full time care even though she isn't using it. Distance can make it difficult or impossible with children having to do a 30 mile commute to school getting up at 5:30am so the childcare drop off can be done and parent get to work etc. To-ing and fro-ing between homes can be very unsettling, particularly if one home has additional people in it - step siblings, new siblings - or expectations in one house are that bedrooms are shared but in the other a bedroom is a personal, private space. One parent recognising that the other parent has done the majority of parenting and considering that the status-quo remains is probably best for the children.

In my opinion, it is a rare separated or divorced couple that can genuinely make 50/50 work for the children. Frequently it is used to avoid maintenance payments or as some kind of exercising of 'rights' rather than thinking about what might be best for the children concerned. There is a lot to think about it and I personally think that what is surprising is that so many people seem to not only try it but persist with it even when children are crying out for something different.

My kids stay at there dads EOW for 1 night sometimes 2 I tried to get him to have them more but he is busy and has another family to worry about (his words), the children he loves with are not his and are both teenagers ours are 7 and 9! It’s frustrating that I get to pay for and do all the running around for childcare, clubs, school etc but I figure once the boys are older they will see what we both out into there childhood.
My bond with them is also amazing and the younger actually doesn’t always want to go to his dads especially if I am not working that weekend. I don’t see it as a raw deal just sad that a parent can step away to that effect especially when they were offered more and chose not to. We have my step children 50/50 and I can’t understand how a mother can be away from her kids for that amount of time happily to be honest

fedup1994

So your partner wants your children 50/50 and fairly his ex partner has agreed. But you judge her for not having her children with her the majority of the time.

RP's cant win. If I have a moan that im finding it hard on my own I'm ungrateful that I have my children all the time.

@spanglydangly-

@SprinkleDash likes to comment on every thread that we've made bad choices having children at all, I think that's what she likes about Mumsnet.

My brother, and ultimately his wains, got the raw deal.
His ex wife did everything to stop them seeing him to the extent of hiding upstairs when he came to collect them every other Friday at 4pm.
I could go on.
He was not the one who cheated, she did several times and slapped his face/punched him when he suggested they both went to mediation.
Not all women are the hard done by ones, some use their children as pawns in the whole mess.
Funnily enough my oldest Nephew moved in with his Dad as soon as he turned 18 and described it as the best day of his life.