To say 50/50 isn't ideal for many children?

[cadburyegg]

50/50 seems to be thought of as the best way to share children after a split but AIBU to think that this isn't always best for the children involved?

My children are with me approx 80% of the time and they love being "at home". They don't talk about their dads being another home, even though I do. I know they would hate having to move around every week and never having one base, they find it hard enough EOW.

So AIBU? Or if you have 50/50 are the kids happy with it?

I agree with this.

This is a very reasonable/ logical position. But unfortunately in the opinions of most people+ the courts, what is “fair” for men is more important that the best interests of children.

I find it interesting that you quoted my post to make this point. I didn't suggest the father should automatically have less custody but that an independent, objective body should make the call on where the children should live the majority of the time. This absolutely represents another way to 'square the circle'. Your assumption that this would mean that fathers would lose out implies that you believe that fathers represent a worse option for the children in the majority of cases.

FWIW I don't necessarily think you're wrong about this but I think your anger is directed at the wrong people. Why would most fathers not be seen as objectively the best parent to have the children most of the time? Surely the men are best placed to change this rather than the mothers or the system. I have seen too many selfish fathers enforce 50:50 contact when it is clearly inappropriate, damaging and really upsetting for the children. I have seen fathers openly admit they want this level of custody to lower their child maintenance bills. I have never seen a mother do this.

No anger, that’s too strong a word. I think a lot of what you say is sensible and balanced. It’s a number of other posters who are in the dichotomy I discussed and do not want to openly say they feel the mum should take precedence.

there already is an independent objective body that decides that. The court. It is likely to deem that 50:50 is fair in most cases so there’s no assumption on my part that objective decisions mean men losing out. Far from it.

and on your final point, yes some dads want 50:50 to avoid maintenance. Some mums object to 50:50 to keep maintenance and I have seen that on this site.

But that doesn’t make sense? People always say that maintenance is such a pittance and hardly covers anything at all so surely they would be better off with 50:50 and getting the dad to pay half!

No it doesn’t make sense. On both sides.

if maintenance doesn’t cover half costs, why would a dad want 50:50 to avoid it? And why would a mum object to losing it? But you see it on both sides. An emotional argument more than a logical one perhaps

also the underlying assumption that a dad will not “play fair” costs wise even with 50:50 care

Most fathers can only do 50:50 if they have a new partner to pick up the slack of school runs/school holidays, illnesses. etc.

I'm sure it does happen sometimes, but I've never known a man to limit his working hours and lower his earnings, in the same way that single mothers do, in order to accommodate having a child half the time.

It doesn’t matter though who drops the kids to school etc. that’s not “quality time” etc it gets described as the graft, the daily drudge etc. single mums most likely will get benefits top ups, universal credit, receive the child benefit etc while dad gets nothing as the non resident parent. So if mum wants maintenance somebody has to earn it. And then still pay for the kids in his time. So it’s a bit unfair to expect him to work full time and pay full time and still do all child related chores as the mum herself doesn’t! If there is somebody who can do it and is happy to do it in the given set up that’s not bad.

I now do 50/50 and am much better off. Children are endlessly expensive. Food and drink, taking them places, new clothes, books etc I can work full time by doing some long / done short days etc.

But that doesn’t make sense? People always say that maintenance is such a pittance and hardly covers anything at all so surely they would be better off with 50:50 and getting the dad to pay half!

But this is a huge generalisation. My friend whose exh pays well over £1k a month maintenance doesn't say it's a pittance. You'll only get people complaining about maintenance if they feel like they are not receiving enough. Those who feel they have a reasonable deal are not going to complain. They may well complain about 50:50 if they know maintenance will reduce to nil but they will still be expected to cover over 50% of the child's expenses. 50:50 doesn't benefit the parent who pays for the most. It's rarely truly 50:50

'Maintenance ' varies massively. It can be just a few quid a week (for those self employed with clever accountants). For those paying this tiny amount, there would be very few/none who would argue for 50/50. They feel like they've won the lottery.

I'm not against 50/50 but not when it is done out of vindictiveness/spite.

The threat of it is also sometimes used in situations of domestic abuse etc and then used to further control. Which is in the worst interest of the kids.

I've only personally seen one properly 50/50 situation and it was a really awful co-parenting relationship and the kids were always in the middle.

As a child of divorced parents, I would have hated to do 50/50. I lived primarily with my mum and spent weekends and time in the hols with my dad. I’m in my 50’s now and both parents remarried and I have lovely relationships with both.

My EXH walked away to be with his OW.
We do 80/20 and I receive a small amount of maintenance.
EXH regularly threatens to go for 50/50 as then ‘you won’t get a penny from me!’
It would actually work better for me if he did more childcare as I could up my hours at work and earn well more than the pittance he gives me but when I challenge him, he backs down. Realistically he couldn’t and wouldn’t want 50/50!

Also DC has specifically said they don’t want to live with their dad. This might be to do with the fact he’s moved on with OW very quickly & introduced her within a matter of weeks of leaving the marital home. I’m sure if they spent more time with him and her they would get to know her but I don’t want them to feel uncomfortable so I’m not willing to push it.

So no, I don’t think 50/50 always works best for anyone. I know courts like to think it does but there’s always one parent who picks up the slack and invariably that’s mum.

So by that logic, should the partner who earned the majority of the money whilst married keep that too?

Only if we think children are "pay per view", rather than having a right to be supported by their parents.

I think that's a good set up ie children mostly sleeping in one house but Dad playing a significant role

Hi, do you have any examples of the development studies? I am interested in this. Thank you.

So by that logic, should the partner who earned the majority of the money whilst married keep that too?

The money needs to go to the residence where the children live because it's about the welfare of children not the parents

You're not applying my logic. My logic is what's best for the children, not what's fairest for the parents.

I do eow.
DP does 50/50 and holidays so 7 days on 7 off. Everyone gets on with flexibility and great communication... We don't live together so I'm not picking up any slack...

I am based in Sweden. Nowadays, about 35-40% of all children with divorced partens have a joint custody agreement, often 50:50 or something close to it. I have several colleagues who have divorced in the last few years and all of them have 50:50 agreements. For very young kids this might mean swapping homes every 2-3 nights, for others it's usually every other week.

Given most studies shows that joint custody (ranging from 30:70 to 50:50) is probably better for children, and contributes to greater gender equality, it is really surprising to see so many here against it.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2018.1454204

https://theconversation.com/how-divorce-is-boosting-gender-equality-in-sweden-new-study-233474

I'll never agree to 50/50 unless I'm forced by a court. I didn't have children to only see them half their lives. Ive done all the hard work and given birth to them and have done the majority of the parenting since birth and I'm not about to stop now. It wasnt my decision to end the marriage. I wouldn't want to shuttle between two houses every few days so I won't ever force that on my children. If he wanted an opportunity at equal parenting then he should have a) done it when we were still married and b) stuck around instead of having an almighty midlife crisis and think the grass was greener elsewhere

Yet then moan when there isn’t money at dad’s house for an extra bedroom, fully kitted out, clothes there too, activities so kids aren’t bored etc. BOTH parents incur costs of housing and feeding and clothing kids so both need to have money for that.

BOTH parents incur costs of housing and feeding and clothing kids so both need to have money for that.

But it's not equal, unless there is a true 50/50 arrangement.

If someone has their children less than 50% of the time then they need to accept they will have to help fund their expenses when they are with the other parent. Thats the way it is. It's not about "giving the other parent money". It's also the law.

@brummumma I thought about letting my ex take me to court for this but was told by my solicitor it would cost me about £10,000 and I would likely lose. The reality is £10,000 is not much to my ex with his family support but is an awful lot for me to pay out only to lose anyway.

It’s because a lot of people are selfish and don’t care about the best interests of their child. They hide behind the guise of not wanting to be an awful parent by ‘making’ crying child go with their dad. They fail to realise that kids aren’t stupid and they pick up on their mother’s reluctance and attitude and that’s half the reason the child will panic and not want to go. If they talk in a derogatory way about the father yeh kid will pick up on that.

Some of the reasons parents don’t want 50:50 are -

To punish the father if he ended the relationship by having an affair.

They don’t want their child to meet the father’s new partner or spend too much time. They don’t see it as a benefit by having another adult who would care about their child, the they can’t get past their own jealousy.

The want to receive the financial benefits literally, like child benefit/UC etc and its harder to do that of they have shared care.

They don’t want to pay maintenance.

They’ll feel lonely.

Control and because they can (they think)

It doesn’t have to be exactly 50:50 but anyone who thinks they’re a good mother by ‘allowing’ their children to see their dad EOW is beyond selfish. You should be doing as much as you can to create a positive relationship between the child and father, unless the father is abusive.

A good mother will encourage and facilitate a relationship with their dad, as much as possible. A shit mother won’t…