To think 50/50 childcare split sounds terrible

[887PooleFan]

A friend is splitting from her husband, they have a 3 year old. Acrimonious split unfortunately. Through his solicitor (they no longer speak to each other at all) he has suggested they go for 50/50 split of care for their DD in a 2-2-3 model. A few of us were having lunch and this friend asked us what we thought (she really doesn't like it and was looking for opinions). I said I'm not sure, it sounds especially difficult for an older child (homework, sport kits, etc, don't most kids need routine?) and she should check with her solicitor if that's something the court would give. I thought it was a batshit proposal but I didn't want to add fuel to the fire and be too harsh in giving my opinion, and wanted to have a think really. From a quick Google, it seems like a common arrangement, does it actually work well in practice? I just can't imagine it being in the best interest of a child to bounce from house to house so much.

It’s an arrangement that benefits parents, not children. Children have a right to see both parents equally, but growing up without the stability of one solid home is not good for their emotional development imo.

I think it’s crap - but it’s a crap situation.
What may be better for the kid in a 2/2/3 is the kid staying in the family home and mum/dad living in a home nearby on their “off” days.

My friend's child stay 6 nights with each parent. That way the days with each parent ‘shift’ naturally throughout.

Works brilliantly and no ‘it’s your/my weekend.

A split couple that I know do it with two houses. Luckily they had enough space in the former marital home to have a bedroom each. The other house is 3 bedrooms - a bedroom each and an office. One has the dining room as their living room.

It was a really amicable split though, I can't see the space sharing the working so well otherwise. They both even have new partners who understand it and are happy this is the plan for the next 3/4 years until uni time for the children.

But 50/50 combats that.

DF can't do minimal actual parenting, more like babysitting, if he has them for a week at a time.

This arrangement gives everyone chance to parent.

Like others have said, I have seen it work really, really well for the kids but only where the adults are prepared and able to work together really well and collaboratively for the sake of the kids, putting aside whatever and whoever caused the relationship to fail, and properly commit to the kids having a truly equal relationship with both parents, not one being their 'real parent' and 'proper home' and the other being where they visit. This meant:

Both homes being equally set up for the kids, complete sets of everything at both homes i.e. two sets of school uniforms, two PlayStations, two lunchboxes and everything else, only a very few special or comfort items going between the homes so there was never hassle about things they wanted being at the other house or cause for conflict on whose turn it was to iron the school shirts or whatever. One family I know did shuttle the family dog around between both houses as custody of him was shared too!

The two houses being close by, within walking distance so although they started with a strict routine when the kids were littler so they knew who they'd be with which night, this could get gradually more flexible and relaxed as the kids got older and had more activities and things after school, until by the time they were teens they basically floated between whichever house took their fancy.

Both parents being really chilled and non dogmatic about their 'rights' and 'having' to have the kids their exact 50%, if a kid was sick and just wanted mum that day Dad wasn't going to insist they came back to his because it's 'his' day and equally if they were wanting to play a game or watch a film with Dad Sunday night mum wasn't insistent on them being back for 5pm on the dot. Holidays, special occasions were either shared or divided in a really sensitive way and again never ever allowing adult emotions to get in the way of the kids enjoyment.

To be clear I'm not saying everyone can and should parent in this way when they split. There's lots of reasons why it might not be possible and a more uneven division of time is best for the kids, in the short or long term. But I do think it's very wrong to say 50:50 is automatically cruel and unreasonable, I think on the contrary its actually the ideal to be aimed for...

@NoctuaAthene Excellent post.

Poor kid. An under 1 year old baby with one week on, one week off with each parent. Definitely not in a baby's best interest.

Sounds like insanity to me.

But then, so does any kind of arrangement where I wouldn't see my child 50% of the time so I suppose my opinion would be the same regardless of how it's split.

If the parents can’t agree then the court obviously. Thats how it works. But if both parents are focused on the children’s best interests and not what is “fair” for them, they ought to be able to agree.

*Both parents being really chilled and non dogmatic about their 'rights' and 'having' to have the kids their exact 50%, if a kid was sick and just wanted mum that day Dad wasn't going to insist they came back to his because it's 'his' day and equally if they were wanting to play a game or watch a film with Dad Sunday night mum wasn't insistent on them being back for 5pm on the dot.

this

That wouldn’t be 50/50 though? One parent would have 4 days a week and the other 3. 2-2-3 gives a 50/50 split.

Same as me and works perfectly well. My son is very happy as he doesn't like to go too long without seeing either of us. Have been doing that since he was 4 and is now 10. It can work.

It’s called nesting. It’s quite popular with a couple of people I know in America.

To me it makes sense, the kids get the stability and it’s the parents that have to move every other week.

one family I know one parent stays with their new partner and the other is a lodger nearer to work. The other family both have separate studio flats. In a way it could work out more economical than running two three bedroom houses.

One mom does bitch that her ex doesn’t do any house work/maintenance on his week which I guess could become infuriating over time.

Yanbu. It sounds horrible for the children. I'm glad my parents didn't try that nonsense.

My cousin does this - but a friendly split, they lived very close to each other (about a mile), and the kids were 10 and 13 when it started. It works very well and is a bit ad hoc because my cousin's wife travels with work. They communicate very well, both have new partners (not living with them) and the kids seem happy and well adjusted. I am very impressed with how well they have done - they are both fantastic parents who put the kids first.

That's actually the only case I can think of, with a 50-50 split. Others are more 70-30 in favour of the mother.

At the age of 3, in the situation you describe, it's harder, and I tend to think the child needs a main home with the main carer.

I agree with all your post except for this:

I don't believe that if the child needs greater time at one home it should default to the mother as so many people seem to feel.

I think it’s really problematic that child custody arrangements have turned into a men’s rights issue. Of course decisions shouldn’t be made by “default” either way, they should always be made on the basis of the best interests of the child. Very often that is in the primary care of the mother for a range of (mostly) social but (partially) biological reasons. Of course that’s not always the case, but we shouldn’t pretend that’s not a real pattern because of men’s rights.

I was a 50/50 kid from the age of 5 and I can’t begin to describe how glad I am my relationship with my dad was not reduced to EOW. I think the most damaging part is having parents who are acrimonious and won’t speak to each other though, never mind the 50/50 arrangement.

We do 2,5,5,2, which I think is actually what is being suggested. Done it for 4.5 years. They are always with me Monday and Tuesday night, always with their dad Weds and Thurs and every other weekend. We live close, less than a mile away (same small town)

My dc are thriving and ex-dh has stepped up as a dad and has a great relationship with them.

It's undoubtedly the case that many men and women see child rearing as primarily a woman's role. Do we as a society want to perpetuate that belief, or do we want to change it by encouraging men to take a more active role in childcare?

growing up without the stability of one solid home is not good for their emotional development

That's a very negative mindset. I would say my daughter has two stable homes.

This is similar to what we do and clubs etc are a main reason it works so well.

I would say the battles are what parents create, it becomes about parents rights not children

I definitely think we want to encourage men to take a more active role in childcare and that can be done through a range of social policies , but that shouldn’t be at the expense of the safety and wellbeing of individual children.
child custody decisions in individual cases should be about what is in the best interests of the individual child in question, not an issue about men’s rights/ entitlements, “fairness” for parents or structural gender inequalities.

I agree