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?

If there's more than 1 child you can claim child benefit for 1 each and each go on the housing register for a 2 bed property and get relevant benefits. I know someone that's done this but they're basically still one family and the kids go to the same school it just means dad managed to get a 2 bed house for when they stay at his.

Plus you then get the higher rate of child benefit.

Posted to early! Higher rate for both kids.

We had 50/50 for 3 years after I walked from the abusive marriage. He met his gf who was horrid to my children. He moved in with her, didn't have room for them anymore. He's seen them 5 hours this year.
He did set up a nice home for them, is a high earner and provided for them well until she got involved and it went from happy families to him not having room for them in 3 months. They have lived with me full time now for 2 years.

Yeah because him buggering off to see the OW every day would be great for the kids and their mum wouldn't it? I'd rather he left than deal with that.

This makes me so sad. I'm so sorry. What a spineless waste of space he is.

How have they coped? They must feel so hurt.

If you had read the op, the op did understand that point

@Klinec its been a bumpy road, they were assigned a family support worker from the local council to help them understand his behaviour as the couple of months leading up to his departure she was emotionally abusive to the children and on the odd occasion physically too. My 16 year old DS got kicked out of school due to rebelling against the situation and took vodka of his dads into school to get his attention and got caught with it and thanks to her barricading my 9 year old in a room with her until he admitted he was autistic had huge anxiety and separation issues after.
This year things have improved a lot. He's not really in contact with them. He won't reach out as, and I quote "they expect replies to quickly" so we have settled into our own life. Paid of the mortgage, got married and had a baby. The adore my new husband and baby brother. They are thriving in school and my 9 year old is like a new child. No worries or anything. Can even take himself to bed again. Life is peaceful.

I take your point op totally see what you mean men who leave then assume the woman will do the majority and they will see the kids when they are free

in saying that I’d have been gutted to have not seen the dc for half the week when they were that little . We do more like 70/30 split now and that works well for me . Best of both worlds

I truly believe a lot of men don’t get what 50/50 means. My supposedly intelligent ex husband couldn’t wrap his head around that I wasn’t his childcare. It didn’t compute. He still can’t work out that if he needs to be elsewhere on his days (3 nights a month) he needs to get childcare. Instead he just cancels and I am forced to pick up the slack.

Initially he seemed to think that he would have them for 6 months out of 12, so I said ok, so you continue to work full time long hours, so you’ll either have to drop your hours or get wrap around care to do school runs/cover for when you’re away. He was GOBSMACKED. He said how could he possibly do that, that’s insane, it wouldn’t be worth going to work, why couldn’t I have them whilst he worked, etc.

I pointed out it cut both ways and whilst he was being super-dad I could go off and earn buckets contracting and not have to worry about the kids. He said “that’s not fair.”

And what WAS fair in his eyes was that we continued as we had when we were married, which was that I did all the childcare, all the school runs and restricted my career options to fit around the kids so that Johnny Big Bollocks could carry on being a captain of industry. And not pay me maintenance. It was loopy. No understanding whatsoever of reality.

Not all single parents get benefits. I work the same job as my ex, exactly the same, but have to juggle it with the kids and the childcare bill, when they were younger, fell to me. Some of that was covered by CTC but not all of it. I don't get help with housing or anything else beyond CB which again, I'd be happy to share in return for his time with them.

As others have said, it's not just number of overnights either..unless they also take on full responsibility for the mental load stuff on their time, it's just babysitting. If it still falls to the mum to remember kit, costumes, school email responses etc, that's not 50/50.

I think this is so true that it literally does not compute with this type of man.

It's the same mindset that leads to them simply getting up and leaving for work in the morning with no consideration for the school or nursery run.

Same mindset that allows them to feel entitled to go to the pub/gym/golf course or play football all day and just assume the mother will care for the children (if they think about it at all).

My ex is OUTRAGED that I split the holidays as to what is most convenient for me. Says it's not fair etc. Doesn't enter his head that it might not be fair that I've done all the school runs, all the cooking and laundry and homework alone, with no opportunity to go to the gym, or adult social events or an evening class for years.

If there's a family home and you aren't selling it and splitting the proceeds then it's going to make having two 'decent' homes more difficult. And lots of people might choose not to to give the kids stability. With the current cost of housing having two homes is going to be difficult whatever; it's just an unfortunate fact of life that it's more efficient to live as a couple. Not a reason to be useless, buying things aren't always that simple.

All situations are different. I would be much more angry if my dh left me and then took my kids away from me 50% of the time - I would accept it more easily if it was my choice to leave.

How many single mothers would cope looking after their children if it wasn't for the benefits they can claim? How many mums say they can't work FT because of caring duties.

Maybe if fathers could claim benefits too, more would be able to provide more care for their kids.

But selling a 3 bedroom house won’t let you suddenly afford two 3 bedroom houses.
When my dad moved out of the family home, he couldn’t have us over night for years because he lived in a bed sit while paying for the house we were actually living in. Doesn’t make him a bad parent.

How would that work? I imagine many dead beat dads would claim it and still not bother to see the children

How would that work? I imagine many dead beat dads would claim it and still not bother to see the children
And many would be able to have their own place and therefore have their kids more often.

Ultimately, it's much easier to care for kids when the system give you money that results in much less pressure to get any job to support you and your children.

Ok my ex has his own place but still doesn’t have them at all so I was just wondering how you can prove the ones that don’t bother to see them but would still claim money for kids they don’t see

I don't nessercerily think it needs to be in place before leaving, but almost all mothers would incorporate their children's needs into their leaving plan, and arrange their life/work/living arrangements occordingly. So why shouldn't there be the same expectation on farther?

Work doesn't fit round child care obligations? - you need a new job

House not suitable for DC to stay? - find somewhere else/ sacrifice area for size

New partner doesn't like kids? - don't start a relationship with them

It's not a realistic option for most people though is it?

But, presumably, you stayed in the rented home you previously shared. Unless you to were pitching on a friends sofa with your kids.

It depends on so many things. I don't think 50/50 is always best for the kids (already been mentioned - I know it's a cliché). If one of you I'd a sahp for example and the other is something like a surgeon or a pilot who has to travel or work crazy hours, it makes way more sense for the sahp to have the kids more.

But then you'd expect the high earning partner to contribute financially if they can't contribute by looking after dcs. So if you mean they shouldn't leave if they can't contribute either practically or financially I do see what you mean. I do think a lot of men do bail out when they have young kids as it's such hard work and they just want out. But you can't do that as you're still a parent, so you have to care for them yourself or outsource that somehow.

Totally agree. Sadly, this is the crux of the matter - men who are caring, involved fathers don't just walk out on their kids without having a plan for their (the children's) future. Only shitty fathers do that.

I think the starting assumption that 50/50 should be the aim is entirely inaccurate.

It might be. For some children and in some
circumstances.

But very often 50-50 is about the parents’
wants (and possibly financially motivated) rather than the best interests of the children.