AIBU? Sharing custody of a baby?

[Poppygirl96]

Me and my ex have recently split and we have a 5 month old son. Currently we are doing it where he gets our son 3 days a week and I get our son 4 days a week. But it is breaking my heart having to go without seeing our son for days. As he is so small I don’t think it’s a good idea to be constantly driving him up and down the country (me and my ex live 1hr 30 mins apart) and because of covid I also think it puts my son at risk.

My ex is a really good hands on dad and pays his fair share and wants to keep it like this. I don’t want to take him to court and lose our co parenting relationship or make things awkward. But if I did what is the likely hood of me getting primary custody?

As I don’t want to go through court just to lose to my ex or have 50/50 especially as our son is so small and I did mostly everything for him as the resident carer even before me and my ex split. Now my ex is suddenly acting more hands on and I don’t want things to be awkward between us.

What do I do? And if I don’t take him to court and just accept him keeping 3 day’s a week with my son how do I handle the separation from my son.

AIBU? I just feel like he’s so young it’s not fair on him like this and that he needs a stable and steady home especially for when he gets older.

oh and the reason I havent been coming back on to you to respond or further back my point is because you clearly dont listen to anyone and believe you are completely right. you used the word "valid" so have deemed your argument to be correct and above the rest of us so what's the point?

I'm very happy to listen to other people's povs and then reconsider my own position based on it - happily apologising where appropriate. I don't see the point in a discussion forum if you don't actually want to hear and consider other people's povs.

I didn't use the word 'valid' with myself in mind as the imaginary overall arbitrator of what is or isn't correct - just meaning logical, coherent examples. If somebody hypothetically said that only mums can breastfeed whereas only dads can push a baby in a pram, I would consider one of those statements to be valid and logical and the other invalid and illogical - as would just about anybody.

Oh my god brick wall. People are singling you out because you are the one that keeps bringing up the biological differences between mothers and fathers. If you don't think those differences make a difference to who can be a main or equal caregiver to a child then they are about as irrelevant as you thought my point was.

We are very good in society at degrading the role of women and mothers with 'well anyone can do that' because otherwise we might offend those precious sensitive men but the reality is the mother baby bond is special.

I completely agree that society denigrates women and mothers and it is appalling - but you then go on to immediately denigrate men and fathers. The mother-baby bond is very special. The father-baby bond is also very special. It's not a competition - the one fact doesn't cancel out or threaten the other.

From the age of 7 months, I was living between my mums and my grandparents. GPs moved about 1 hour away. Lots of back and forth. When I was 4 it was decided that main residence would be GPS and mum would just had joint custody and get me every other weekend and some time in half terms or holidays "because this child needs to be settled for school" (mum and GPS lived in two diff counties).

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll is that not essentially what I have said though? that they are both equal, "special" if you like, but they are different? whether biologically or for an "unexplained reason" like this poster has said - I don't think I have said anything unreasonable at all or said either is unequal just that we play different roles. I've never said a man cant be main caregiver just that in this situation the mother is

f we are basing this on animal instincts then we’d mate forever and never leave our caves.

Not all animal are monogamous!

@aSofaNearYou all of my initial points were about the OPs situation. it was another poster who said the discussion had grown wider than that and what this further conversation has come from. you are particularly offended by anything I have to say for some reason so I will leave you to it.

cherrybunx0 - we seem to have found common ground!

They are indeed both very special roles and there are things that mothers tend to be better at and things that fathers tend to be better at. My main point of contention on this thread is the assumption that many have had that the mother must automatically be the better/default parent because.... 'well, she's the mother' which is no argument at all.

I know it isn't the same thing, and I am not accusing anybody on this thread of anything at all; but in principle I believe it's related to the ingrained thinking that a lot of people have held over the centuries with regard to race. Not the outright evil supremacists seeking to commit genocide, but the everyday folk who believe that white people are better - not through any sense of malice or wishing to harm non-white people, but through fear and prejudice (and the lies of Empire) and the basic assumption that the only way they've ever known things to be must be the only right and proper way.

Something can just seem so normal and familiar to us that we easily confuse it for 'proper' or 'best'.

You made a choice to separate when you have a small and you're both fully entitled to that decision. But you have to understand that decision comes with sacrifices too. It means you won't get to see your child for the duration they're with the other parent and you have to accept that. It also means that you'll have to travel between homes to drop baby off. Going forward, there'll be other sacrifices too. At the moment, your baby is too small to mind a 1.5 hour trip but as he gets older, it may be a burden on him. In that case, if you're going to allow him access to both parents (which is something every child deserves if there's no harm from a parent) then you'll have to continue the commutes and disruption to his life. The other option is that you both decide that if you don't want your child to be commuting then you uproot yourselves and find homes nearer to each other to allow your child the benefit of both parents without commuting.

Something has to give here. You just have to work it out what that is.

@webuiltthisbuffetonsausagerolls (amazing name by the way), I never mentioned fathers but interesting that's where your mind went because that's the issue isnt it. Acknowledging the role of mothers is seen as a put down on fathers. What I said was men, by which I mean the patriarchy as well as individual cases I've seen IRL since becoming a mother. It was only a female psychologist who broke it down in such fantastic terms and no doubt saved my life.

All I know is that the poor OP must be feeling completely bewildered, confused and further from clarity than she was when she posted.

Tjmumma
It's not sexist it's just natural. You be ok to be away from your 5month baby for 3 whole days? Your comment is a
disgusting disregard for an infants emotional needs. If she did everything for the baby before all this, the baby will be impacted, regardless if he's bottle fed.

Its crazy crazy crazy.... and the latest research is indicating that its NOT good for children to be split between homes like this.

I can see you're trying to do your best but I cannot imagine the torture your BABY is going through when you disappear half the time. This also risks insecure attachment syndrome where the child has weak attachments to both parents because of this which could create a lifelong issue of trust.

The baby understands this as abandonment... He may love his father but he needs you... all the time at this stage. That's the biology which some are falling all over themselves to ignore.

Good father's know this,... but a lot of men are pushing for this 50-50 business simply to reduce their child payments. You need to stop this now ESPECIALLY during Covid 19 !

Proudmarys well my baby is EBF so no i physically couldn't but id work away around it but if not then yes. Father has just as much of a right to our baby as me. She states on other threads he did a lot towards baby, how do we know who the baby has a stronger attachment with? She's already stated she struggles to bond with baby etc etc father may be different. Just because she does bits doesnt necessarily mean baby has a strongerbond with her

Its crazy crazy crazy.... and the latest research is indicating that its NOT good for children to be split between homes like this. Totally agree. I don’t know why 50/50 is applied so widely when there is little or no evidence that it is more beneficial to children than one main home, and some evidence that it can be detrimental.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll well when fathers give up their careers to be stay at home dads as much as women do, when dads equally spend time nursing babies as much as the mothers, when all this happens BEFORE a break up, then I agree there is a case. If that baby had 50/50 strictly care before break up.

After break up is not an excuse to totally mess around with the main caring arrangements before break up - suddenly fathers wanting to actually be fathers when they weren’t before, then that is wrong.

StayinginSummer - I agree with you....I think....but I don't understand why you're talking in general population terms. In the event of a split, I think the baby should ideally be with one main carer - the one whom they've already had as their primary carer; but it should be decided on an individual basis, whatever is in the child's best interests.

If a baby's parents are splitting up, it matters not a jot what 'mums' or 'dads' do or have done in general - the only thing that matters for them is how THAT CHILD'S own parents have hitherto cared for them and are in a position to do so continuing after the break-up.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll I agree with you there, however the move to 50/50 care by courts and pressure from mostly fathers, is to push that because fathers will miss then and are capable, then even if it was 90/10 care mother/father before the split, it should be 50/50 after.

This worries me greatly. Especially as the evidence shows that good relationships with both parents are not the result of equal or more time. That good relationships can be maintained by being the non-resident parent or EOW parent.

I don’t know why people like the OP are pressured into accepting 50/50. Yet they are and in the basis of ‘everyone’ can do 50/50 and that is where negotiations typically start from! Rather than THAT child like you say.

@StayinginSummer - You are right!

This 50:50 push came from the Father's Rights brigade was is driven by ... yep money. Only in the past 30years have men been held financially responsible for their children - before that they walked out on Mum's or drank the money and left everyone in poverty. No men were fighting then for 50:50 !

As soon as courts in the West started making father's (instead of taxpayers) pay for their kids up sprang the movement resentful at women leaving men AND having the right to force men to pay for too!.

Typically Father's Rights lawyers etc instruct men to push for 50% of time so .. yes they pay only 50% child care. That's why so many non-interested fathers suddenly become Mrs Doubtfire after splits or divorce.

A lot of judgy people on here saying he's AUTOMATICALLY entitled to 50% BECAUSE she left him. NO that's not how it works. Its not the 18th century... women can leave men now its their human right coz they're no longer chattels/ slaves.
NO ... research is saying evenly splitting time is NOT in children's best interest until they're much older (assuming no abuse etc).

Yes... of course everything should be about the child's interest but any man demanding BABY half the time DURING a deadly pandemic for goodness sake!!!.. is utterly selfish & incapable of putting baby's interests first. QED.

In 2014 the family court ruled 50/50 with my ex-husband, despite the fact that he was/is a coercive controller. My boys were just 3 and 6 at the time and I had always been the primary carer.
Six years on the order remains in place and I'm still being put through hell by my ex. Eldest son (now 12.5) is suffering from anxiety and mental health issues because of 50/50 with a narcissistic father. Father is now applying for even more custody.

On and re finances, 50/50 means no maintenance due. Boys live their weeks with me in privately rented accommodation six years on. I work ft. Financially things are a struggle.

Their weeks with dad are in a huge exec five-bed with four bathrooms and a hot tub. Not to mention his four sports cars on the drive. He earns well of excess of £100k a year and also supports his unemployed gf who is 18 years his junior.

So yes, as some posters have said, clear financial gains/control to be had when making a 50/50 court application.