To say 50/50 shared custody is selfish and horrible for children

[5050hell]

I spent my childhood doing 2/2/3. I have begged my partner should we end up divorcing that we never do this to our children. We are actually very happy together, this is only a worry of mine due to how much I hated it as a child.

Never spending more than 5 consecutive nights anywhere. Constantly packing a bag and having to drag it to school (as that was when switches happened, leave one house and go back to another). As I got older never having the clothes I wanted, or even the book I was planning on reading next. Trying to make plans with friends, then turning up at the other parents house only to be told that my Saturday was spoken for. Parents being difficult about sleepovers at friends as would be missing 'their' night. No flexibility, parents acting hurt if I didn't want to stick to the schedule. Not to mention my dad did not pay maintenance due to this arrangement, and certain things were supposed to be done turn by turn (ie. Dinner money, bus pass school trips) often spent so long arguing I never got them!

It's mainly my father I resent, as this set up was arranged for him to avoid maintenance payments. I do resent my mother for not trying harder to fight it. We've spoken about it since, she says she thought it was the right thing.

I am extremely adverse to staying anywhere other than my own home as an adult, and feel like I always need a routine and schedule and worry about planning etc.

I haven't thought about this for many years until the stage of life now becoming a parent myself.

Perhaps I was an overly sensitive kid? Maybe it's easier now with phones etc.

I can't help but think that for a child it's far better to have a main home, and visits to the other parent. AIBU?

It seems mainly on Mumsnet that so many women decide to have kids with the most Neanderthal wankers imaginable who do fuck all to help them raise the kids and hold these misogynistic views. Yes, having that sort of man for a father is not great for a kid but the damage is done whether or not they spend 50/50 or 80/20 with their dad. In my circle of friends, dads do pull their weight even if they might work longer hours (allowing the mum to do part time) and it might not be a completely equal split during the relationship. Doesn’t mean those dads shouldn’t have equal time post-divorce.

I disagree, I'd say the damage keeps being done the longer a terrible father has access to his kids.

As for the second part of your post, sure - if someone is an active, engaged parent then they should be encouraged to keep a strong relationship with their kids post divorce.

But I agree with the OP and others that maybe what's best for the child isn't 50:50. Sometimes someone, mum or dad, has to sacrifice their own happiness for the benefit of their children. Maybe what a specific child needs is a stable base and seeing the other parent for days out but not overnight.

Very upsetting for the parents, obviously, but ultimately they should prioritise the needs of their child.

This - my parents did 4 and 3 I think so it worked out at 7 in 14 (I was older, so just sort of did what I wanted, but for the kids). Their divorce was not great but credit where it’s due , they co-parented excellently and were co-operative and put the kids needs above their dislike of each other. I think that’s far more important tbh than the actual logistics (although I do think 2-2-3 is a bit bonkers!)

One parent ends up burnt out from doing all the childcare in that situation. A friend of mine handed her kids to their dad in the end because they were a handful. Her son kept on walking off whenever she pissed him off. He only had them EOW and in the end she had to give in and let him have 50/50. Then she gave up completely and lived with her mother. She wanted control and she couldn't let go of her ex. The best interests for the children was 50/50 but the battle between them was more important to her than her children. Both of them are lovely people but together they were toxic.

He wanted nothing to do with her. He was only interested in the children. A child needs both parents they fulfil different roles in a child's life. Its neglect on the controlling parent to withhold their child and dictate when they can see them. EOW is not enough for an emotionally challenged child.

Not in our case, it isn't. My DC specifically requested "equal time" with both of us as they missed their dad. We'd done 6 months of 70/30 approx with me being the resident parent. And of course they missed their dad! He's a hands-on, involved, loving father.

I'm not saying what you describe doesn't ever happen, but it's absolutely not universal.

Very true, particularly the comment about how CMS do their calculations

I’m an introvert. Home is where you are with your stuff and the people you love. I’ve never been attached to physical building.

As I’ve said many of these examples include difficult relationships with parents, or not having stuff at both houses. My dc have bedrooms and duplicates of stuff. They don’t carry clothes across houses, unless they want to.

I couldn’t have done nesting (abuse, finances). So how else do we do it?

Sacrifice my career? My house (because I wouldn’t be able to pay mortgage). That’s a pretty bonkers level of sacrifice.

This is quite fucked up:

Yep, it's awful and is based on the nonsense that parents have rights to be with their children which supercedes the children's needs. They don't. The child has a right to stability, safety and decent parents. A parent who actually loves their child will want that child to feel safe, comfortable stable and provided they are being well looked after by the other parent will accept that they only have limited access - if they love their child.
King Solomon had a point

Parents (dads basically) should only have “limited access” because what the child really needs apparently is not a loving attached relationship with their parent but being in the same place every night. It’s quite scary how little people value father-child relationships because I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be telling mothers that if they really loved their kids they’d effectively butt out of their lives because they were being cared for by the other parent.

You do realise that the outdated model of dads fading away post divorce and kids just living with mum is what we had in the 80s and 90s and no, kids weren’t happy/happier at all. It’s not like you’re proposing a new radical thing - there’s a reason why courts now recognise shared care as being good in many situations.

You're right, it's fucked up that you completely invented and then responded to a comment I didn't make.

Parents who are not the main care giver shouldn't want to torture their children by further destabilising them after a divorce. 50/50 continues not to work and good parents care more about their child's needs than their own wants.

If you're the main caregiver of either sex it is, irrefutably and definitively, better for the child to be with you most of the time. Only a monster would insist that the other parent is the best main caregiver then destroy that stability for their child for their own wants.

Not complicated at all. Stop making stuff up.

I find it completely bizarre that in 2025 we’re still talking about parents not having fully shared responsibility for their children.

On what planet is it acceptable for any parent to not be a “main caregiver” for children they chose to create.

Both parents should be sharing caregiving responsibilities, there shouldn’t be men who don’t know the name of their child’s teacher, or mums who don’t know if their kid had breakfast today, etc.

Our kids don’t have a “main caregiver,” they have 2 adults who care for them equally.

Outside of the physical necessity that it’s a woman who breastfeeds, everything else and all after that is both parent’s job.

I don't care what you find bizarre.

My comment is correct and stands.

Anyone choosing to have children with men (predominantly) who don’t want shared responsibility for their children, is an idiot, and has kind of backed themselves into this corner.

I don't are what you think, and my comment stands.

If you don’t care what anyone thinks, why are you here?

Sorry but what utter bollocks. No you are the one who is fucked up. I bet you wouldn’t say to a female breadwinner who had to work long hours to support the family that she should step back and have limited access to her kids. Often there is a primary caregiver when the family is together because that makes financial sense. That doesn’t mean the kids will suffer with a shared care arrangement at all.

It’s a shame that these threads always end up with women getting blamed for men’s actions.

I think choosing to make yourself the main caregiver for shared children, is a choice we can either make or not make.

I’ll never understand why we don’t expect full shared responsibility from men, and then complain when we don’t get it.

The reason 50/50 works for some people, is because there’s an expectation that it always was, even when together. There’s no transition to caring for your own children if you’ve always done it, which IMO is the bare minimum we should expect.

Okay? Would you like to suggest how I can make my ex husband have our children 50% of the time?

No? Obviously have no idea who he is, or why the arrangement is whatever it is.

The post I was referring to was regarding women who are main caregivers, don’t expect their husbands to coparent even when they lived together, and then their children are “tortured” by having to spend time with a useless parent.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but my point is we should stop having children with useless men, or enabling them to be useless by not expecting equal parenting from the off.

Mothers who believe they should be the main caregiver, end up divorced and sharing access with a man who’s never been expected to change a nappy. Not for me.

Not sure how or if that applies to you.

I didn’t have kids with my ex knowing he would be useless. He wasn’t useless until after our second child was born. Hope that helps 👍

Errr yeah, it does, because that’s not what I’m talking about.

I am talking, to be clear, about women who assign themselves the role of wife and mother with no expectation of equal effort in the home from the off, backing themselves into a corner further down the line.

Women who, like I said, take on the “main caregiver” role because they see it as more their responsibility than any man’s, and then wonder why their husband won’t make the kids lunch, doesn’t know the teachers name, etc.

Essentially, women who live in the 1950s and then get divorced in 2025.

Which doesn’t actually sound like you. So not quite sure why you’re taking it so personally.

But the argument is about the children living on off on off in two places at once, not about fair shares of them for their parents, or whether a father or mother in any given instance is the best person for a child to be based with if there were not a 50:50 arrangement.

And what when these kids have done that their whole lives?

The idea I was responding to was;

Parents who are not the main care giver shouldn't want to torture their children by further destabilising them after a divorce. 50/50 continues not to work and good parents care more about their child's needs than their own wants

My point is that both parents should be the main caregiver, intentionally, so therefore the child would reasonably be with both parents equally if they separated, otherwise they’d be missing out.

And as I’ve said before. It’s more destabilising occasionally visiting your own parent, EOW or even less, because children should always have actively involved parents, provided those parents aren’t dickheads.

Children have a right to access both parents, and both parents have the same rights to their children.