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?

What about the children's right to have equal time with both their parents?

I agree with you. My ex and I do 50:50 with DD6, but I don't think it's the best situation for her. Same as your situation, I know that DD sees my house as home, and going to her dad's is viewed as a bit of an inconvenience by her. She accepts the situation, and I've explained that we both love her so much, we both want to spend time with her. It's not ideal, but we all have to make the best of it.

I think people show signs but they’re overlooked. My opinion

How do you know she's not told your ex the exact same thing?

I think there a very few cases where 50/50 would be in the benefit of the children. A lot of men want it so they don’t have to send maintenance.

For young children especially they need a base and a rough routine. They need boundaries, and unless you and your co parent and on the exact same page it is very difficult to replicate this in both households. Once you add in step parents and step/half siblings it is impossible. As they get older they will resent having to lug about their stuff and will want a base for socialising/ extra curricular activities.

If you are talking about having the child’s needs completely at the centre of it, I think a 70/30 over night contact split, with the lower share parent living very close by and being very involved day to day, with
neither parent introducing any romantic interests until late teens. But this would very rarely happen.

YANBU, I don't think it works for most children. It can work for some but overall I think children need a "base" home.

My ex wasn't interested in any contact at all so I have DS 100% of the time but we split up when he was 10 months old and I would not have agreed to 50/50 at that age if my ex had wanted it.

I am a child of divorce also and would not have wanted to spend 50% of my time with my dad.

I agree and I’m so sick of the mentality ‘kids have two homes and two parents’. It’s selfish for the children and ONLY benefits the parents. I’m a firm believer that children need stability, going back and forth is confusing and not stable at all. A lot of parents who do 50/50 wanted it for the control of lack of maintenance. I know of many dads who fought for 50/50 and when they got granted it, they allow their partner to do the school run, look after the kids etc - they barely see the kid and leave the responsibility to their partner. But because they wanted the control of the other parent and not pay maintenance, they’d rather have their girlfriend/wife look after the kids 50/50 than their own mother.

That has to be weighed against their right to a secure and stable home.

Mum only gets 30% and dad gets 70%?

All the research I've come across on the subject backs 50/50 as having the best outcomes for the children.

I find it very hard to believe that staying in the same house is more important than having a good relationship with both parents. A secure and stable home is not about bricks and mortar.

Can I out in a word for ND dc who are extremely attached to things and objects? Many find 50/50 unsettling.

50/50 works amazing for us.. no way would the kids want to spend less time with each parent.
It's important not to make blanket statements. And do what works individually for you as a family.

I’d love to hear more about this? @Diomi

Thankfully the starting point is 50:50 in courts.

To those keen to point out the benefits of having a ‘main home’ where the NRP is ‘allowed’ access to their children often, it makes me laugh because the main home is assumed to be with the mother! That’s fine but you can’t say that’s the best way, but only of it with you. It doesn’t work like that.

There are many dads who are brilliant, in the same way not all mothers are great. The child isn’t anyone’s possession but any descent parents would want the child to have a close relationship with the other parent. That can’t be said for all mothers I’m afraid. Some do say their child doesn’t want to see their dad but as a pp pointed out, it’s the self fulfilling prophecy and becomes a viscous cycle, the child doesn’t want to go because they don’t feel as comfortable because they aren’t there as much…

Put it this way, surely you would want to know that if godforbid you drop down dead, your child would still be ok, because they are so used to spending as much time as possible with their dad. Awful to think that way but you don’t know what’s around the corner.

Just reading some of these posts. There are definitely men who do use 50/50 to not pay maintenance and there are also abusive men who do use it to punish women. But these are not all men, these are just bad fathers not the good ones.

As far as maintenance goes though, my daughter costs far more than the £250 a month her Dad seems to thinks she costs. I think I would of been better off if he had of done 50/50 because 50/50 would of meant splitting all bills. For years I really struggled whilst he earned double what I did, now I earn double what he does so I can support us all and pick up the bits that he refuses to do.

I have an approx 80/20 split and my children do prefer it, because I've checked in with them about whether they would like more time with their Dad and they said a firm no.

To be fair, that's probably because their father is measurably the more disengaged parent and their time at his house (a long drive away because that suits him best, rather than suiting the kids) is boring and far away from their friends and activities.

In situations where there are two engaged parents, I can see that 50/50 is likely best for the kids. I have a friend who does this, and it works well for her kids, though she finds it an enormous struggle to not have them half the time. In that regard, I do see my set-up as quite lucky. I realise there is an extra burden of care on me, but frankly, the joy of having my children with me more than makes up for that.

I hear this a lot. If he never has her at all, the £250 is meant to cover half of her costs. My daughter doesn't cost anything like £500 a month so I'm not sure how it's not enough.

You must be extremely frugal if you can provide food and household products, housing, electricity, water, internet, school or nursery costs, extracurricular classes, clothing, toys, medical/dental, gifts, health insurance, etc etc for a child for less than that.

There are studies that infer that 50/50 is the best outcome for kids because an equal bond to both parents is important for emotional security.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-case-for-5050-timesharing-when-parents-divorce

Well I disagree. She’s 17 and I have been through every step of paying childcare, paying for school uniform, school shoes, after school clubs not to mention feeding her, housing her and all the basic stuff you are supposed to do. Food and heating are both expensive at the moment and interest rates are high. Oh let’s not forget driving lessons which are also expensive.

My kids didn’t like it and ex accepted that they preferred to have one primary home. They still saw a lot of him, and thankfully we got on well so he could pop round after work

Exactly this.

Which parent are you speaking about here?

Well I haven't factored in energy as our bills haven't changed particularly since having DD.

I've just worked out a breakdown- some costs are more annual so averaged out over the months.

Extra bedroom- £100
Clothes- £50
School uniform and trips- £50
Food- £100 (ish, we spend about £400 a month and she eats about 1/4 of the food)
Childcare- £50 (actually just £600 at summer holiday club, we do have help in other holidays from grandparents)
Extra-curriculars- £100
Xmas and birthday gifts- £50 (£300 on each)

Which adds up to bang on £500. Then I get £100 a month child benefit for her so it means she costs us £400 a month.

I appreciate they cost more when at nursery or if you choose to send them on ski trips and so on with school. We also go on holidays but I wouldn't expect an ex to chip in for a family holiday he wasn't even going on. She doesn't need health insurance or dental insurance, children in the UK have the NHS and free dental care.

Yeah that would mean £1500 for my 3 if that was the case which is more than total household income