When did 50/50 become so common?

[Luckylooloostar]

I have a SC and when contact was set up over 13 years ago it was really common to do EOW with maybe a night in the week. No mention of 50/50 ever. Really common among others too around that time.

but Iv noticed a trend over the last few years that seems to be when you split its now 50/50…

Do more men now want this so they don’t have to pay CMS?

@Soreteatowel I think if the parents get on and don't try and out do each other I don't see why the children will feel they are pushed from pillar to post.

I have experienced having Step Children and they grown up to be very successful and happy adults. They have maintained good relationships with their parents, half sibling and Step Parents.

I've seen children who's parents are still together go off the rails.

I grew up with parents who argued a lot and I often wished they had split up.

Yes, but if you'd had to flit between homes you might also have wished they got back together.

I think even when everything is very amicable children can still feel torn, they're not daft, they still know what people want to hear, but obviously the outcome we found don't happen in all cases.

It was just interesting that in our sample of very sad cases, they weren't children of parents who'd stayed together or children where one parent wasn't involved at all.

I think you looking from a negative point of view. The child in our family brags she has two bedrooms.

What do you suggest? People stay together till the Children have left home.

My SD said she was glad her Mum & Dad split. I'm sure my SC aren't the only ones who had a better life because they split. She is an adult now and still says this.

I'm not suggesting anything, just giving the outcome of our research, which was that every one of the 9 teenage suicides lived between two homes.

You've answered why it was less common years ago. It was because generally men worked full time and generally women didn't.
I can't believe you think fathers only have the right to EOW when you admit you wouldn't want that. Dad's love their kids too.
My DS is a total daddy's boy and DD1 is a daddy's girl too so I would expect him to want 50/50. To suggest it's about money is ridiculous.

That’s not research at all.

You have taken a tiny sample and extrapolated reasoning. It’s not statistically significant at all. That sort of ‘research’ is extremely dangerous.

It’s like the research that says kids have poorer outcomes when from single parent families and people interpret it to mean women can’t parent on their own and need men to be a good parent. Then use that as a further excuse to bash women.

I once read that your risk of suicide goes up, if someone in close proximity commits suicide. So you could just as easily say that after the first one, teenagers hearing about someone their age in the approximate area doing this, increased the risk.

It’s actually quite horrific that anyone would undertake such serious subject and do it so poorly and then try and make it sound like that it’s actually significant. And doing it on a professional setting. Then trying to use it to prove your point when discussing the issue with (mainly) other parents.

The only two things they all (100%) had in common was a history of self harm and separated parents , who were both very involved. Not 50/50 but absolutely parenting jointly.

Correlation doesn’t equal causation though, there’s plenty of research that indicates a level of social contagion both in self harm and suicide particularly in young people who are very susceptible to social contagion. I’d be looking much more deeply at the sequencing of these very tragic events, the role of social media, media reporting, community engagement etc rather than simply suggesting children of separated parents have a higher level of suicide.

Thankfully, the sample within one LA is always going to be small and no one is suggesting causation, but 100% has to worth considering even/especially if its not what you were expecting or what you wanted to hear. I left so I don't know what further work was done with the data, probably nothing, the schools were just pleased to find they weren't all bullied children or children with huge academic pressure etc

Worth considering how. Because what's the "solution" there?

I agree with the other poster that this "research" is dangerous.

There is a genetic component found to some suicides. That genetic component can overlap with a genetic component for:

genetics of smoking, pain, risk-taking, sleep disturbances, and poorer general health

All factors which could contribute to divorce

So sure your suicides could all be because they are from divorced families sharing custody. Or the families could be divorced and a suicide could have happened because of genetics.

This sounds like an example of correlation doesnt equal causation to me

So it would have been better if schools had just ignored the issue?

I left so I don't know what further work was done with the data, probably nothing, the schools were just pleased to find they weren't all bullied children or children with huge academic pressure etc

Ffs I’d seriously hope schools weren’t undertaking such slip shod research into deeply concerning issues merely to say “it was nothing to do with us”. Suicide and causation is an immensely complex issue with rarely one factor in the driving seat. Nine teenage suicides in one location is very concerning, I’d expect a systematic, multi-agency review with published findings - not a study with an eye to nothing to do with us.

And no one said it did.

100% has to worth considering even/especially if its not what you were expecting or what you wanted to hear.

Studied further (properly) absolutely

Considered by the general public absolutely not at this stage and so poorly developed a study

the schools were just pleased to find they weren't all bullied children or children with huge academic pressure etc

So an LA found that they weren't responsible for the suicides in the study that they funded? I mean it might be right but that's like believing a report from a tobacco company that smoking doesn't cause cancer

Perhaps you'd like to arrange the funding for it then? The schools were trying to see if there was anything they needed to do differently and they didn't find any school based common links.

That doesn't mean that living between two homes contributed to their mental health issues. Perhaps their parents were separated because there was abuse, or addiction. Maybe the reason their parents split has more to do with it than the resulting living conditions.

Well you have just presented it to the thread as didn't call out until several posts later that it didn't equal causation (a post I cross posted with)

This is an incredibly unprofessional and dangerous way to present data from this "study" to the general public

Thankfully, the sample within one LA is always going to be small and no one is suggesting causation, but 100% has to worth considering even/especially if its not what you were expecting or what you wanted to hear.

Except by dropping it into a discussion between parents about 50/50 care, you did exactly that - it’s disingenuous to now say no one is suggesting causation. I don’t know any parent that doesn’t carefully consider the impact on their children when they separate, we don’t do it for shits and giggles.

I think weekends have a lot to do with it. If one parent works full time ,and has the children every weekend, they get zero weekend downtime. With a 50/50 split, they get alternate weekends to themselves for socialising, dating, etc.

I don't think child maintenance is relevant to most people.

Perhaps you'd like to arrange the funding for it then? The schools were trying to see if there was anything they needed to do differently and they didn't find any school based common links.

There are already mechanisms in place for such a review to take place, it’s not something the school would be expected to arrange or fund. The local child protection committee (Scotland) or safeguarding children’s boards (England) have a duty to undertake independent reviews and where I am this kind of situation would definitely fall under their duty to review.

Actually the post I responded one was one saying "obviously" it's better to have 50/50 than not seeing one parent. Nothing to do with separating v staying together

Actually the post I responded one was one saying "obviously" it's better to have 50/50 than not seeing one parent. Nothing to do with separating v staying together

But you said these young people had separated parents, and not all of them had 50/50 care arrangements but did have involvement with both parents, pointing to that as a common denominator in children who took their own lives thereby suggesting a causal link. You’re backtracking now - hopefully because you realise using the deaths of children to prove a point is absolutely abhorrent particularly when the “research” was a cover your arse effort on the part of schools.

The sample was small (9) although sadly also too large, but 100% must be statistically significan. I do think we underestimate the way children feel pulled from pillar to post.

And here is where you suggest causation.

Personally I think that's ridiculous and just as likely to be copycat suicides.

You are saying that having 2 supportive parents post divorce rather than one never being seen again is more likely to produce a child that takes their own life?