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?

@DaisyDozyDee - sounds like he was a great parent, actually - he sacrificed his own time with the kids that he clearly loved loved to ensure they had a secure home, and that their lives were not disrupted by having to move home, schools, areas etc. 50/50 is not all about equal time - its about equal contributions that are decided upon with the best interested of the kids at heart.

No one wants to be forced to stay with a partner that doesnt want to be there
The problem is housing and childcare.

Both are not available in the quanity and type needed and are expensive.

What are you talking about? Fathers CAN claim in exactly the same way as mothers.

But society expects that the father, who may well be the higher earner as the mother will possibly have taken the hit on her career to have the children in the first place, to go out to work and for the mother to carry on doing the childcare and then attempting to fit work around it.

The rub however, for the father, is that he has to do the childcare bit as well. And a lot don’t see that as their domain. Or they’ve simply left. Or they can’t conceive of having to make the compromises women make to juggle everything, say in and day out.

There are many scenarios where 50/50 doesn't work, in fact here in Mumsnet many women don't want 50/50 (perhaps for cms reasons) everyone is different, what is important is children are put central to the decision making process.

Is it just that he’s a wanker he doesn’t give a shit about the kids and men basically get to do what they want!

Oh yes and often have this ‘discussion’ with my friends who say they can’t afford to leave their husbands - we’re talking about ex Lawyers and accountants here whose husbands are in the same careers but have risen ahead with the wives having pregnancies and Mat leaves

Would you also take the view that the mother can't kick the father out unless he has somewhere to go that's big enough to have the children? Relationships break down from both sides. In my experience, both mothers and fathers often fail to consider the children's best interests when breaking up.

It should be more widely known that your parents breaking up is as damaging to a child, according to research, as one of them dying. I'm not saying people should stay though abuse or cheating (they absolutely shouldn't) but IMO some people end relationships that might be savable because they don't want to put the effort in, and either don't care or aren't aware how terrible that is for their children. And I've known that happen with both men and women instigating the break up.

I have many friends and family with broken relationships that have children. All are present and responsible fathers in their children’s lives.
I voted unreasonable as you yourself acknowledge that it’s not right to stay in an unhappy relationship and because I don’t see much of what you describe around me. I also see around me a children getting screwed up as the parents are together in an unhappy relationship. And I have many adult friends who are still suffering the effects of this from their childhood.

I strongly agree with this view, @110APiccadilly

So you find out your husband is having an affair, he can’t afford to rent his own property, this means you have to continue living with him, even if you don’t have a spare room and have to share a bed with him.

So not only is this crap, you’re insisting the children are being brought up in an unhappy and high stress home. Why do you think children should be forced to put up with that? How will you personally deal with the later issues those children suffer as their ACEs increase?

My DH would absolutely love 50:50 split. Separated nearly 10 years ago and used to do all nursery runs but only got 1 night and EOW. Tried to go through mediation a few years ago to get more time and ex made life hell on earth. Not got the money to go to court and not sure our marriage would survive the levels of abuse she’d give us… (not sure how we are still married from the stress she’s caused over the time we’ve been together).

So there is another side to this where dads want 50:50 but it is so hard to get 😢 (live walking distance from their school, they have their own rooms here and would like this)

No it really isn't. Lone parents have to fit their work around the childcare they have available. They can't just abandon their children to work a shift.

If you're a pilot or lorry driver working irregular hours and don't have childcare, unfortunately you need to take the financial hit and change careers.

A lot of relationships aren't really 'savable' though beyond both parents managing to coparent relatively amicably in the same house. Intimate relationships typically involve sharing bedroom space and having sex, neither of which people should be expected to do against their will just to 'save the relationship' for the sake of the children.

Well I assume a lot of these men don't do 50:50 when they are there nevermind when they leave.

Regardless though, it's all very well and good saying 'you shouldn't leave unless you can provide another house big enough for our children to have their own rooms and shouldn't ever need to work more than 50% of the week' but in reality that's often not how it works. In a failing relationship, SOMEONE needs to be the one to leave and, whilst I agree there will be tonnes of men who use all the excuses under the sun, there will be others who are just trying to get on their feet once they've left. If it was mainly women leaving the family home or who had worked full time whilst the father stayed home or worked part time, I imagine you'd often find the same situation at least at the time of the initial separation. It's not always possible to leave and then immediately go to complete 50:50 care if that hasn't been your set up until that point.

And who'd want some dick head hanging around longer than necessary either?! If my husband cheated or abused me id want him gone, not hanging around until he was in a position to do X Y and Z, even if that meant him bunking on a mates sofa for a bit or moving into a smaller property for a while/finding another job etc...

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
Neither did my ex, but for many dad, it is a genuine reason. Or working shifts etc...

Work doesn't fit round child care obligations? - you need a new job
But that doesn't apply to mums though. You hear all the time here how mums can't increase their hours because of childcare or their jobs don't allow it. No one tells them to go and apply for another job that fits around it.

Paramedics, police officers, nurses, and many other jobs work in shifts and are quite niche so it's not a case of just looking for another job 9-5 that pays the same.

Getting housing benefits as a single man requires a very low income, getting social housing almost impossible.

Of course some dads are shit and only use excuses but others would live to see their kids more but their housing and job options -income- are more limited.

No it really isn't. Lone parents have to fit their work around the childcare they have available. They can't just abandon their children to work a shift
No they don't. They can opt to reduce their working hours and claim benefits instead. The requirements to work are a but more strident now but still offers much flexibility that non residents parents don't have.

A lot of the time though the parent recieving significant maintenance from a pilots salary don't want to take the financial hit. You see on here over and over again how these men must not disadvantage their children by taking a lower income and paying less maintenance. But if they have 50/50 care then it's fine to financially disadvantage their children. Righty ho.

Given 4 in 10 NRPs pay no maintenance whatsoever and many more fail to pay what they should or end up paying a pittance (the CM calculation amount is hardly generous in a lot of cases), it's hard to take arguments around the NRP needing to not financially disadvantage the children particularly seriously. In any case, they could always pay for childcare so they could do their job, couldn't they? That's what most parents do to enable them to work... pay for childcare, including out of hours if needed. Or they could pay the market rate to the RP.

Same here. My ex morphed into 1950s man as soon as ds was born. He's never done a night feed, he only changed about 4 nappies and he's never looked after him for more than a couple of hours straight.
I had no expectation of that changing when we split. We split BECAUSE he refused to do.

By then I couldn't have cared less, I was just glad to see the back of him.

"How many mums do you know who’d want 50/50, no maintenance, not getting more than half of any assets there are? Losing half the time with their kids? Having to consider the other parent a proper equal?"

Me, that's what I wanted and have right from the start, because the kids needed both parents in their lives.

Were not talking about the ones that don't pay. Let's face it, if they don't pay they're not going to have their child 50% of the time. I'm specifically talking about reduction of maintenance not being okay but a direct reduction being fine.

Of course they could pay for childcare, but again that's not what was said. It was "change jobs and take the financial hit" without any regard for the child.

Why would they pay the market rate to the other parent? That's what maintenance is for.

How do you propose to enforce this?

This 100%. When my ex had an affair and decided he ‘couldn’t give her up’ I didn’t want him here at all. The nights he was out with her until the early hours while we tried to maintain an air of normality for DS (then 12) were incredibly hard. I was so relieved when he moved out (even without him having a home to go to where he could have DS). Initially he did visit DS most days.

DS sleeps here 7 days a week and now spends the day at his dad’s once a week. My ex knows I would move heaven and earth for DS so he doesn’t have to. He leaves most of the parenting and all the organisation to me. I also work full time.

While sometimes I wish his dad was a bit more involved, I would hate a 50/50 arrangement. DS and I are a great team and luckily he seems happy with the set up. He knows he could sleep over at his dad’s but has no wish to and that is fine with me.

Most men would want 50/50 (in my experience) but end up with far less time with their children than they would like. Most women on the other hand (again, most, and only in my experience) wouldn't be happy with a 50/50 split of time spent with their children.

Every situation is different and every separation is different so there is no 'one size fits all' solution. I think that any implication, however, that men get a 'good deal' in separation is a bit of a fantasy.

So much of this discussion seems to position the children as objects or possessions to be shared out in a divorce settlement. There’s lots of talks about what parents want or will allow, but (as os so often the case) little consideration about what the children might need.