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?

Divorce sucks for all involved. Not divorcing and continuing to live amongst conflict and dysfunction is usually even suckier for all involved.

Perhaps the bottom line should be that nobody should be deciding to have children with somebody who they don’t see or trust as an equal parent and who they wouldn’t potentially see as beneficial for their children to spend 50% of their time with in the future.

Always on these threads you get loads of posters saying how 50/50 is awful and it’s best they kids spend the majority of time with one parent

what they mean is the majority with them (or the mum). They never mean a majority with dad would be best. They would absolutely hate to be a non resident parent but believe it’s fine for “the other parent”

Yet you had a baby with him even though he sounds feckless…

I feel like 50/50 is more about treating the child like a possession, not as a person.

My children aren’t possessions, they are living, breathing, thinking people who have very clearly said they want to see their dad and their mum as much as possible. They wanted a 50/50 split, they decided the nights they are in each place and if that needs to change to suit their social life we negotiate with each other. They have been firmly at the centre of my exDH and I decision making. You may not agree with 50/50 but to suggest it dehumanises kids is deeply offensive to parents who are working hard to centre their children in the event of a split.

Sorry to ask, but if you have any of those development studies to hand could you share them? I’d be really interested to read. Thank you x

I think it depends.

Week on-week off when the houses are an hour or more apart, the children have one set of "stuff" which needs to move between houses every time, children can't join extracurriculars due to distance, one or both parents have temporary sleeping spaces rather than permanent bedrooms, the parents hate each other and are unable to communicate or co-operate on parenting, and/or the children have no friends nearby is obviously going to be terrible.

If one parent is unstable, unreliable or abusive, it's a terrible idea, but then, any schedule would be to an extent.

50/50 where there's a arrangement that works well for the children's schedule (e.g. the 2-2-5-5), parents live in the same area so children are able to attend the same clubs and activities and see the same friends, they have a permanent bedroom where they can keep everything they need (uniforms, equipment, casual clothing, toys) so they only travel with a few personal items, and the parents are able to maintain a reasonably good relationship and make compromises to keep things roughly equal between both houses might work quite well.

It's fine and pretty much driven by what DC wants atm. By about day 3 he wants to sleep at the other house 🤷🏻‍♂️. The houses are a minutes walk from each other and it's a very flexible arrangement so he sees lots of the other parent even if it isn't their turn. Having said that, if/when it needs to change that's OK too. I obviously cannot prove its the best arrangement but "wincing" at the thought is a bit melodramatic!

That’s why I said “personally, don’t come at me.”

It’s just what I think and what I’ve seen. Personally. In my life. How great that it’s works out for you, fantastic. But I don’t know you, so I can’t draw on your experience.

I can only talk about my experience and those of family and others I have known and I stated that.

My friend has 3 - a 8 year old, 2 and 1 year old.

Dad has them every tuesday night until Wed morning (drop off to school and LO back to Mum).

He then has them every Friday - one week pick up is Saturday after dinner and the next week its Sunday after lunch. Theyre pretty flexible with weekend timings based on whatever activites are booked in.

He also pops over either Monday or Wednesday for family dinner and club runs

Two houses, two sets of rules, two sets of problems, new partners, new lives - while the kids are stuck in limbo moving back and forth.

It doesn’t need to be like that. My kids have two houses where they fully belong, the house rules are pretty consistent because their dad and I talk about what’s ok or not. No new partners, and neither of us would introduce a new partner while the kids are living at home, there’s absolutely no need.

It's often best for parents, rarely best for kids. While young they need stability with regular contact not to be shared out equally like an asset. Once older 50/50 may be beneficial for some, but it's still a very unsettled life to live with no permanent base.

I would have hated 50/50 as a child, and I would hate it for my kids if DH and I ever separated. @MyOtherCarisAVauxhallZafira described the situation that I think is optimal for kids in this situation - one permanent home where they sleep, but lots of time spent with the non-resident parent doing normal day-to-day activities. Obviously the parents need to live close enough together for this to be feasible. Having a single stable base is so important for a child's sense of safety and security, and I don't think 50/50 is conducive to this at all.

Absolutely nailed it! The irony. It’s best if it’s their situation. They’d be screaming blue murder if the situation was the other way around. It wouldn’t be ok then…

This is what we do. 50/50 from the start.
At first it was 2/2/5/5 but the 5 days was too much for DC and for me.
Now we do 2/2/3 then swap.
The changeover days are always the same.
We have a calendar shared with DC so they always know.
We both make a point at changeover of reminding them when they will see us next. They have an iPad and can message or FaceTime anytime.
It works for us because DC are happy. Sometimes I really miss them, other times I'm glad of a break.
Geographically we're a 10 min car ride apart but I live nearer school, however this will change at some point with house sale and move to senior school.
Ideally DC will be able to walk to school from both houses and move between them at will when they are old enough

But I don’t know you, so I can’t draw on your experience.

But you’re happy to extrapolate your experience to every parent who has a 50/50 arrangement, despite many on here explaining that their kids have asked for it and that they go to lengths to give their kids what works for them. In other words the very opposite of treating children like possessions.

Well obviously the ideal situation for the child would be no split at all. So if there must be a split, are you suggesting the dad should hardly see the kids?

I suspect they don’t actually exist.

Maybe you’ll be told to do your own research!

I absolutely agree. It suits our narrative of equanimity and allows both partners have an equal shot of a working life. It's terribly inconvenient then that it fails children so utterly miserably to be shipped from one family and house to the other constantly through their childhood, disrupting their lives, their hobbies, their friendship groups, their stability, their homework spaces. Adults wouldn't willingly chose this life.

I know of two DC whose parents spit. 50/50 in place.

Both parents now have two more younger DC. There are also two -step siblings at one parent's house.

Those DC have gone from 2 of 2, to 2 of 8. They have siblings who are permanently at each parent's house. They move houses 4 times per fortnight. They never really have any downtime as each parent wants 'quality time' with them during their 50%.

The sheer amount of possessions that they have (clothes, toys, furniture etc.) is mind-boggling. The number of adults in their lives now (so many additional aunts, uncles, grandparents etc.) is huge. The admin for their lives is colossal.

I wonder do those DC ever feel a bit lost in it all.

Parents live quite close by and get on fairly well now, but my take on it is that there has been a lot of aggressive parity over the years.

That's really unkind. People change during a relationship, there by the grace of god and all that if the person you marry remains a good egg through marriage and divorce should it happen.

I didn't seek maintenance either, I was not remotely interested in any sort of dialogue (or using the kids to convey a dialogue if I had gone the CMS route).

That’s out of order
none of us can predict how our spouses/partners will behave badly.

I think nesting is definitely best for the children. More parents would do this if they were really putting the kids first. (Except in cases of abuse)

Those DC have gone from 2 of 2, to 2 of 8. They have siblings who are permanently at each parent's house. They move houses 4 times per fortnight. They never really have any downtime as each parent wants 'quality time' with them during their 50%.

I think that’s a very different thing though, than having two loving parents whose focus is your happiness, who are flexible enough with each other to work with the child’s wants or wishes. I think blending families is infinitely more selfish than having 50/50 contact arrangements and infinitely more detrimental in many cases.

Good for you, but it’s very unusual for divorcing parents to then decide to stay single for the remainder of their child’s childhood.

And - even if it appears that this is all very consistent and reasonable to you, that doesn’t necessarily mean your children feel the same way.

IMO most won’t feel like they ‘fully belong’ when they’re then shipped off again the next week. No adult would opt to live in a different house on alternate weeks.