If they "can't" do 50/50 shared care then they shouldn't be walking out

[Klinec]

I'm talking about the men who walk out on their families whilst the kids are young and then say they can't do shared care because, for example:

He has shacked up with the OW and she doesn't have room for his DC to stay over because she's got loads of her own (and she doesn't want them there anyway)

He is sofa surfing / bunking on a mate or relatives sofa and can't have his DC live there regularly either.

His work schedule isn't compatible with having his DC overnight.

He works nights and isn't awake to collect them from school.

He can't have them at the weekend because he has to work etc etc.

Those are just a few shitty excuses some of these men give, I'm sure many of you can think of more.

I've just been thinking to myself that (in the absence of abuse ofc) if a man "can't" participate in shared care of his DC when he leaves the family home because he has no stable home to bring them to, then he should bloody well make sure he has a stable environment to go before he ups and leaves so he can begin sharing the childcare immediately.

Don't just walk out and leave it all to the mother, you shithouse.

If he's walking out with no long term plan and only somebody else's sofa in sight then he shouldn't be leaving at all until he has his "ducks in a row" IMO.

OK so I'm not suggesting anybody stay in a relationship they don't want to be in but it infuriates me how some men think its acceptable to just up and leave without any intention to continue looking after his own DC.

AIBU?

Well in this perfect world of Great Great Britain, the departing man could just buy another house or rent another house with some of that spare cash every family has just lying around. We have a crisis here of making money faster than we can spend it, so quite right OP no excuse to leave until you own two houses or can pay rent on two houses.

And jobs are a dime a dozen, no excuse to be working any antisocial hours or weekends whatsoever. Every man planning to leave has no excuse for having a low paid shift job, he’s got to be a CEO and make his own hours of day 10-2 four days a week.

Yes OP, you are quite right 100%. In fact, I’d advise women don’t get pregnant until that second UK home is bought as insurance policy against him deciding to leave one day. Prioritise it over buying a holiday home abroad, it’s not hard. Just good planning and making good life choices.

This sounds much more reasonable than my OP, thank you for rephrasing.

Absolutely this.

I kind of get where you're coming from. I'm separated with two young DC. Ex works lates/night shifts on a completely random pattern. I'd love to have a proper 'every other weekend' schedule for my own sanity but unfortunately that doesn't happen. He does take the children to his (lives with his mother) when he has weekends off and more recently if he has a few days off in the week. Also he will come and stay at my house with them if i need to be somewhere. (For instance I start work one day a week at 7am instead of 9.30 - if he can't have them the night before then he will come here from his night shift at 5am. Shut his eyes on the sofa for a coupes of hours - I go off to work and he gets up with them, gives them breakfast and takes them to school and then goes home to sleep). This only works because we've both worked hard to stay amicable as that's what best for the boys. Also if he's starting really late like 7pm he'll pop over after school and have dinner before he goes to work. We do this because it's what's best for the kids. In an ideal world he would have his set times and I could say join a club or a class and socialise and talk to people (I see the same 3 faces in the office and his and the kids and that's pretty much it as my few friends are also single parents and our schedules rarely match up).

It's hard being away from the children but equally gives me time to recharge and refresh. More than 2 days does start to make me low though but I know they're enjoying time with their dad and his family.

In short - is there ever a right answer?

No of course they shouldn't give up their job and claim benefits.

Plenty of single parents have to work nights and they make it work because they have to.

I never got maintenance so I don't have skin in that particular game.

How do they swap the kids if they are working nights? Young children under school age you expect a surgeon or lorry driver to work on no sleep for example?

I used to do weird hours and go to bed when they went to school but that's not possible if they're under compulsory school age.

If they're not doing it when you're together why would you expect that they'd change?

I'm going to have to throw out a MN favourite, she knew what she was getting into when she entered into a relationship with a man who has children.

The children are part of the package when you take on the man, or should be.

Most leave because they don't want/can't be arsed with the kids. So of course they're not going to bother with that.

This is why I don't understand why people have relationships with men who have kids they don't live with.

I had to work weekends.

I didn't "have" my kids. They were in childcare or with friends and family.

I fail your test. Basically.

And yet I'm a mum and I was a bloody hard working one.

I don't buy the children are part of the package.

They're his responsibility. Not hers. At all.

I know the angle you're coming from, OP, and I agree.

If DP and I were to split, we've already said how neither of us would move out as it means one of us missing out on DS, and neither of us is prepared to take that hit. His house that we rent out isn't practical for DS's school as it's in a different city, so it'd mean DP missing out of overnights during the week and seeing much less of him, and we've both agreed that neither of us would be prepared to see DS anything less than every single day. We'd have to continue cohabiting and co-parenting.

All theoretical of course as a split isn't even nearly on the cards, but we both feel very strongly about being with DS 100% of the time.

Yep 👍 x

If my husband left, I'd have so much less to do, I wouldn't give a monkeys what his living situation was. Quite capable of giving my daughter what she needs without him.

Nope. They are his responsibility.

@AnneLovesGilbert hi...I'm absolutely what you describe. I'd happily forego maintenance and the relentless drain of single parenting 24/7 alongside a full time job for a 50/50 arrangement. A lot of the single, professional mums I know feel the same, contrary to what's been said here. On a more wholesome note, I'd love for my kids to have a closer relationship with their dad and not to feel like he chose his life with ow over them, which is what he did when he pissed off and dumped all the parenting of preschool age kids onto me 28/30 days. It never seemed to occur to him that he couldn't do that, just upped and did it. Now for the princely of 18 or 20% of his salary he gets to basically act like they don't exist most of the time. With a number of caveats, I agree with the OP.

It sounds like you have found a system that works for you and the DC, and thats great.

In the absence of being able to set up home when leaving, if more men would be prepared to do something like your arrangement it would alleviate so much pressure from the mothers.

I don't think I thought out the 50/50 statement before I posted in haste (and frustration to be honest)

Ideally, and I know we don't live in an ideal world, the men who leave their W's and DC would prioritise doing their share of looking after the DC, however works best for everybody so long as it remained a priority (as PP kindly rephrased for me!)

Snap!

Thats not what complaining step mothers are told on here every day though, is it?

And no you don't fail my 'test' don't be daft.

I'm pissed off at the people who up and leave the family home, leaving the DC with the other parent, make no attempt to actually contribute anything to the child rearing and make excuses as to why that is.

I think you know you don't fall into that category.

@Klinec whatever arrangement a man makes for his children are on him and him alone. I don't agree with the perspective you say is the prevailing one on here.

I'm just saying if you go by your op I fail your test.

Part of the issue is that only one parent can be deemed the RP & receive housing & other benefit support.

In some circumstances the mother is receiving it, but the father isn't, so can't afford to rent any where.

Oh course plenty of fathers are also a waste of space. But our financial system isn't set up for it to be affordable for each parent to separately manage a family sized home.

Also. This.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/ssac-occasional-paper-22-separated-parents-and-the-social-security-system/ssac-occasional-paper-22-separated-parents-and-the-social-security-system#separated-parents-living-standards-and-the-social-security-system

There's a report worth reading on this.

That is a good point.

When XH walked out, post affair, to pitch up in his DF's place which enabled him to come and go as he pleased - he was always very quick to point out that he can't afford to get a house here (in London) on his wage alone. We both earn a low-ish wage.

He knew he wouldn't be able to afford a house (or even a decent 2 bed flat) when he left but it didn't stop him doing it. He didn't give it a seconds thought.

In order to be able to conduct his relationship with OW he made himself (as the council told him) intentionally homeless.

It never seemed to occur to him that he couldn't do that, just upped and did it.

This, with bells on. This is the problem. They just fuck off without a backwards glance because to them its perfectly acceptable to just pass all of the responsibilities onto the mother.

My jaw would hit the floor if somebody suggested to me that this would be an acceptable way for me to behave.

Again, I'm not referring to relationships where there is abuse.

YANBU OP. It's infuriating when people assume the other parent will do everything.

This.

He's the parent.