To fight 5050 custody?

[TrucksTrains]

I am planning to leave DH. I have been reading threads about divorce etc.

Is 5050 really the starting point these days? I do most of everything for the kids but he's a fairly responsible type who loves his kids (albeit he's a grumpy dad type who ducks the hard stuff but guess that's because I step up).

Kids are young (pre school and early primary).

Is it fair to fight 5050 as its just for fair on the kids? I just dont agree with 5050. I would hate to live in 2 homes. They say its what best for the kids but isn't 5050 to keep the parents happy really?

My close family tell me 5050 is rare but not according to MN.

I want to fight 5050 but is that unfair? Is there even any point? I don't know if I can go through with it if that us the reality of the situation

I think what is actually best for the kids is for them to remain in the family home and the parents do 50/50. It does have a name - something to do with birds or nests!

I've heard of people doing that and it's completely bonkers.

It's in no way more settling to have parents flitting in and out than it is kids going to a different house.

Would fall apart as soon as someone got a new partner.

If you wouldnt want the kids having 2 homes and 5050 then would you offer him the majority share?

If not then what you really mean isnt that you disagree with 5050, you mean that you dont want to have less than 50% custody.

Thing is OP:

• how does a judge know whether he does no admin and does that make them a bad parent? So someone could be really shouty, not support their child etc. but because they do all the admin that’s ok? I’m playing devils advocate because the criteria can’t be things like that

• secondly it sounds to me like he is capable (as are most adults) as you’ve said he’s fine when you’re not there but a nightmare when you are. This is either enabling or just an unhealthy dynamic you have between you - nothing to do with capability

I think this is the problem - if he’s doing nothing like 50:50 of their care, and none of their admin, now, it’s not realistic to just straight to 50:50 after a divorce.

At best, you’d work up to it over time

This is utterly bonkers and doesn’t work.

The fact is you can’t go on sharing a house with someone after divorce. I think it means the family home becomes almost a workplace for the parents and not a home, and that does no one any good.

Yeah I know someone that did this for a while. The kids stayed at home every night and the parents did a week on and a week off, moving between the house and their parents/relatives houses when they didn't have the kids.

It didn't last as, as you say, it becomes not a home for the parents, but in a way I think it helped the children come to terms with the fact that their parents had split up.

In the end the Mum met someone else and moved in with him and so the children now do 50:50 and Dad kept the house (buying Mum out) so the kids still have their original home too.

It's most definitely not the usual way of doing things though!

For a temporary period of time following the break up it’s often necessary, of course. But not in the longer term.

The evolution is slow, but Fathers are doing more child care every year and any Mner will tell you that they should always do half.

My experience of the courts is that 50/50 is now a serious option. That wasn't the case even 10 years ago and many of the older Mners are thinking of life in the past when a father would usually only very rarely get significant custody.

I agree somewhat with an earlier poster who it depends on the Judge, an increasing number of whom are women. They will have had busy, demanding professional lives and are well used to juggling child care. Some will have outsourced much of their child-care to full time nannies but many will have had husbands/ partners who stepped up to the child care plate.

My other thought is to avoid court if you sensibly can. In the past the Divorce was largely the woman's friend and she was advised to go there and take him to the cleaners. Often that would happen. It is less common now as society has changed and women want different things post Divorce. As can be seen from this thread many women welcome 50/50 custody. It helps their careers and gives them more down time. Others women don't want 50/50 because they can't imagine being separated from their children for half the time.

@BrieAndChilli
inwas told that blurs boundaries and is massively confusing for children

You can say it's bonkers but I found it worked very well for my family. It's definitely not for everyone, fair enough, but it's a reasonable short to medium term solution for some - not 'bonkers'.
Long term would be hard I think (we did 4 years as kids then off to uni) but who knows, maybe it would work for some as a long term project.

I liked it as it combines 50:50 for parents without making children move house constantly

I always wondered how this would work practically for the lower earning spouse, if there was a massive difference in earnings.

If one was on 6 figures a year and the other barely above minimum wage, there would be no maintenance paid with 50/50 and a massive disparity between lifestyles surely?

For example, in my area house prices and rents are insanely high, so even if you had 100k to put down on a property, if you earned minimum wage, you 100% could not afford to buy anything. But on 6 figures, you could easily get a mortgage on a fairly decent home.

So the no maintenance perk of 50/50 benefits the higher earner, as the lower earner even on union credit could barely afford to get by and any money from selling the property would mean they couldn't even claim union credit until their savings had dwindled being spent on luxuries like rent and food!

So the child would get a disney like experience in one house, which the poorer parent would be unable to replicate, which I'm sure would potentially lead to very complex feelings about it from the childs perspective.

@Cavernbright I earn 4 or 5 times what my DH does and have been told if I split and we go 5050 I may need to pay him spousal support as well as give him all the equity in the house for precisely the reason you set out.

Making children live 50/50 between two homes = in their best interests
Adults living 50/50 between two homes = bonkers

It shows where the priorities lie for these posters, and it isn't with the children.

I think it really depends on how involved each parent is. I was a 50/50 child and it worked well as my DDad was a good parent. He remarried and I got on with my stepmom too. It also helped that my parents remained civil and friendly, so there were no conflicts (or at least none that I have noticed as a child).

It would be a completely different story if he was a shit dad or married someone who despised me though.

If he's a good father and if he wants 50:50 then I think you should go with that. They will adjust and you will too. Work with him to give your children the best family you can.

All decent people consider the children first and foremost. It is often really hard to know what to do for the best

I wonder would you give a children a veto on their parents' divorce? If it was in the children's best interests for their parents not to divorce would you compel their parents to stay married?

Is it fair that dads get 50/50 when separated even though it was the mum doing the majority whilst they were together?? Just saying......

As can be seen from this thread many women welcome 50/50 custody. It helps their careers and gives them more down time. Others women don't want 50/50 because they can't imagine being separated from their children for half the time.

IME many women who don’t want 50:50 are because either dad is extremely shit and selfish or else there was domestic violence in the relationship. It’s usually a combination of both. I never had a father and my DC has a sorry excuse for a father. I feel like I let him down. DC is now a teenager and his father still can’t be called a competent, reasonable. I am not even sure if his father loves him. His father seems to use DC as a prop to make him look good. It’s bizarre. If DC and his dad had odd falling out you would say let them get on with it but after years of DC being unhappy with even EOW then something had to change.
For me it’s not about being separated from DC it’s about giving DC a stable, loving home in order to minimise the damage his father does.

50/50 is best for the children

says who? It’s not best for children who are young and have only ever been parented by one parent because the other was out early and home late everyday. It’s not best for those children who struggle with changes to routine. It’s not best for those where there is conflict or abuse and one parent takes the opportunity to abuse the other at every hand over. It’s not best for babies who need a primary attachment during their first 12 months minimum…..

We of course should not be considering fairness between the parents but the best interest of the child.

But if we have to consider fairness. Here are 2 thoughts:

MN has made it clear that men must do 50% of the care. It would be completely absurd and unfair if divorce courts ignored what women want.

Alternatively if child care isn't the suffocating burden that MN claims it to be,
then some husbands have clearly sacrificed their interests so that their wives can have as much time as possible with the children. It would be ridiculous and unfair to expect that sacrifice to continue after divorce.

It’s much deeper than that. Many children develop a secure attachment to the mother’s because she is there when they need her night and day whether she is sick or under other external pressures. She mightn’t be perfect but they trust her and feel safe with her. Dad was just the periphery figure whose job was too important or he was too tired ( insert some other BS excuse here) to be bothered to play a real active role in parenting. Sure dad can be a bit fun sometimes when things are going well, but just can’t be relied on when things go wrong.

My DC have two different dads and one is a brilliant dad and other isn’t. Sometimes women here with 50:50 arrangements are dealing with great dads so think other women are being unreasonable for not doing the same.

No. It’s not a double standard.

It’s the adult who makes the home for the children. If there’s no adult who is making the home then there isn’t one. There’s just a house.

@ItsNotRocketSalad

Casually throwing out that my priority isn’t with my children is also deeply offensive.

I moved heaven and hell for my children, and put them first in everything, every day. You have no idea about me and my priorities.

And no. You didn’t touch a nerve. You said something misguided due to the anonymity of the keyboard warrior.

In my country 50/50 is the starting point and rarely deviates away from that unless there is abuse or distances involved. Even when the exes don't coparent well. I haven't seen any issues among the many divorced friends I have. I also work extensively with kids who go through divorce and since it's just the norm here nobody seems destabilized.

I think it forces both parents to step up and care for the children.

Of course it depends on your circumstances!
I don’t do 50/50 with my ex for various reasons - DD goes to school close to my house and our childcare is close to our home. XH lives on the other side of our (small) city, if she were to do overnights in the week she would have to get up really early. Instead XH gives her dinner once a week and does EOW. It’s enough. He’s not the most hands-on Dad. DD wouldn’t want to go more, she’s clear about that.

I would double check about spousal maintenance. My solicitor said it’s notoriously difficult to get. If you were doing more childcare I’d be surprised if he could claim spousal maintenance but I’m not a solicitor so get that confirmed!