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?

You do realise that the outdated model of dads fading away post divorce and kids just living with mum is what we had in the 80s and 90s and no, kids weren’t happy/happier at all.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.

@Glowingup Sorry but I was a child in the 80s who continued to live with Mum. Even though we didn’t overnight with Dad, he didn’t fade away. And I was very happy having one place to call home, having to live across two homes would have been awful

@SleeplessInWherever Parental “rights” often end up in court. The “rights” of dc to be happy are far more important and courts are aware of this. Therefore parents need to establish what’s best for dc, not what’s protecting their “rights” which are often detrimental to dc who want stability and not shuttling from one home to another without anyone taking the time to ask if it works for them.

Yep I see this with my next door neighbours....I feel so sorry for those children. Out in the dark at night getting dropped off at their mum's house when it's her turn for a few days...have seen them getting into a car in pyjamas too sometimes. It's so sad for the children not having a primary base. They must wonder if they're coming or going!

But as long as the mum gets her free weekend that's the main thing EOW with her new partner...

No one but the adults benefit from this arrangement.

Yes it's traumatic for them. I feel bad for the children next door to us. New partner that mum is shacked up with and a new sibling not long after splitting up with the dad. Suspect the mum had an affair and youngest is the product of it. She's a selfish individual.

What a world and not in the children's best interest.

I can see problems inherent in the 50:50 split.

But if a child loves both parents equally and they both want to and are able to have the child live with them, what's to be done?

What practical soliton is there? How do you decide where is the primary Base? Flip a coin?

No one has the right to say to a parent " there's nothing wrong with your parenting, you've done nothing wrong, but we're taking your child away to live with your ex".

Its all very well to sit in judgement but what's the solution (excepting the inevitable, unrealistic 'don't get divorced if you have kids, under any circumstances').

I think there a lot of merit in the children staying in the family home and both parents coming and going idea, but that requires a great coparenting relationship that not everyone can achieve, and finances to cover the cost of 3 homes. Its not viable for most people.

No one has the right to say to a parent " there's nothing wrong with your parenting, you've done nothing wrong, but we're taking your child away to live with your ex".

There is every right, as it is not about a parent. It is supposed to be about the child.

It’s supposed to be what’s good for the child, not just the parents. I can well understand why it made OP unhappy and unsettled. Children aren’t possessions to be shared out by the owners.

It is about the child. If as PP says there’s nothing wrong with either parents parenting - why would it be in their best interest to not see one of them?

They wouldn’t ‘not be seeing one of them’.

They would simply be allowed to live primarily with one of them, experiencing a stable daily life with a clear routine in their own space instead of chopping and changing back and forth, and seeing the other parent for alternate weekends and part of holidays.

I challenge anyone to live and work under stress and to be going back and forth in this way.

I wouldn't like it as an adult and certainly wouldn't have coped with these circumstances as a child as I would have felt like I didn't truly belong anywhere. Without a solid base to call "home", if you like?

I know many give lots of positive reasons why 50/50 is such a greatconcept. But really, is it not just amazing for you as a parent? It's not likely to be amazing for the child!

The elephant in the room is that it’s usually the mum that would have primary custody, and fathers who have done nothing wrong lose out, and children lose out on regular access to their other parent.

I think that removes the removes the very real perspective that some children want to see both of their parents more regularly than EOW, and therefore lose out when there’s a less than 50/50 arrangement, they want and need both parents.

@SleeplessInWhereverA lot of dc find the to and fro disruptive. They have friends, clubs, and activities that are best co ordinated by the resident parent from one base. Ok if both parents are 100m from each other, but miles apart, it’s very difficult. Dc want to have a social life as well as parents.

Funnily enough this is the situation that my daughters friend has.
Parents 50/50 and living barely 5 minutes walk and she still has said she hates the back and forth of the last 6 years.
She loves both her parents, who adore their children.
She would rather be in her mums but she knows it would devastate her father whom my daughter tells me is fabulous, and whom has always bent himself out of shape to host them, drop them all anywhere, and genuinely try to make his house a very welcoming place.
I think logistically it is just disruptive, and if that is how a child feels, it can be very hard to change, despite huge effort.

I think the issue is that too many people do 50/50 “wrong.”

There’s no reason for any reasonable and decent parent to move out of the area their children are in, and any activities/friends they have should be able to be facilitated by both. Same with belongings, nobody should be carrying their life to school in a backpack on “swap day.”

We were 50/50 (now full custody), and he genuinely would miss the other parent after a few days, EOW would be far too long a gap between either of us. There was value and equal parenting in both. Forcing less contact a would have meant him losing out. All events, social events, clubs and activities were doable by both households and all of the key things he’d want and need were available in both.

I personally think equal coparenting and access should be the aim.

I understand the guiding principle of 'best interests of the child'.

But again, how would this actually work?

You are using the word 'right' in the colloquial sense. In terms of actual legal mechanisms, there is no mechanism for the state to remove a child from a good enough parent whose only crime is being divorced (not should there be - can you really not see a problem with advocating for this? ).

Who decides which parent? A judge? The family court system is over run as it is. And on the basis of what crcriteriaFlip a coin?

Its all very well saying 50:50 shouldn't happen, but how would this actually work in practice?

I understand that it's crap, but sometimes it's the only viable option.

Totally agree apart from

"There’s no reason for any reasonable and decent parent to move out of the area their children are in"

In theory that's great but what if one patent falls ill and needs family support which isn't available locally (happened to me)? Loses their job and can only get another out of the area?

Families have all kinds of complications.

You're right, it would be stressful and difficult for adults, let alone children.

But how, specifically, would an alternative work in practice? You can't just criticise something if you have no alternative (well you can, but there's no reason for anyone to take you seriously).

I've seen 50:50 work well where the parents lived in the same town, change on a Wednesday and spend Sunday afternoon with the other parent - so nobody goes too long without seeing each other. Kids seem happy. That takes great co parenting to work though.

I think it’d have to be the parent’s responsibility to make sure they either could be close by for their allocated times, or could still facilitate things like activities and school etc.

I just don’t think it would be fair for the child to have an exceptionally bigger commute or less access to things important to them.

That would be very difficult in practice I know, but otherwise it wouldn’t be centred on the child, and making that 50/50 work for them.

The alternative is not 50/50.

If a parent has to move further away, it is usually not being able to afford a property closer to resident parent. It’s very very common which is why many parents cannot possibly do 50:50. Then there’s work and the needs of dc to have a social life as well as their housing needs met. Not everyone can make one three bed house stretch to 2 three bed houses. It’s purely practical to not do 50.50 and parents should never be shamed for not doing this .

Swapping on a weekday, mid week, can be utterly disruptive if it’s 20 miles away. Parents living near to each other is ideal but not always possible. Plus - the elephant in the room - dc might prefer to be with one parent and not the other. Teens will get a say in this. They might not be comfortable with new girlfriend or boyfriend either and might not like being collected from school by the baby sitter while they wait for the parent to come home from work. Dc should be listened to and not carved up because parents insist on 50:50.

What just happens in the end is that the children vote with their feet and pick a house. You wouldn’t expect an adult to tolerate it, but they will probably cope better as an adult.

50/50 is for the parents, not the child.

But you're ignoring my questions, so i will ask them again:

If both parents are willing and able and want to care for the child, how can any arrangement other than 50:50 be decided on? Should a Judge flip a coin?

Which parent gets most time and which has to make do with suddenly only seeing their child EoW? EoW can be the precursor to a parent slowly being edged out of a child's life. I've seen it happen. That isn't in the child's best interests.

The UK state, thankfully, does not currently have the power to remove children from good enough parents. Are you saying that it should do? Based on what? The 'crime' of getting divorced?

As I said, 50:50 isn't great but how would a family determine anything else, if both parents are willing and able to care for the kids?

Its all very well saying something is awful, but you need to have an alternative that is more workable than 'well I don't like it so it should just magically be different'.

How is that going to actually work?

I wish I knew an answer. As I said, I think its very hard on the kids.

@NameChange0101010101 I will
try again! You are seeing this as what a parent wants issue. It’s not. You keep saying which parent sees dc less and how is this decided? Overall it’s decided because one home provides a better base overall for dc. It’s about having one bedroom and one base. It about what is best for dc and not a parent grabbing “their time” or dividing up the child cake equally because they selfishly want their possession.

As a result, a judge (if it comes to that) will take circumstances into account. This could be:
Where parents live and accommodation
Disruption to dally or weekly living for dc - how much should dc tolerate this? What is unreasonable?
Ability of parent to provide care for dc meeting their needs
Ability afforded to child to have a social life
Ability of parent to parent when they work - work patterns
Views of dc

Parents who want 50:50 often make it work but it’s often about them. Dc are just told what’s happening. The parent working long hours will employ a child minder or get grandparents to help so they get their share. Many parents don’t have this available so take the pragmatic view of a 5/9 split over 14 nights works for them. This is a very common split and dc get a stable base for most of the week. Parents organise holidays for dc minimizing need for child care in the holidays.

Children change their views and have preferences. They are not all coerced into staying in one house or another. They get older and know what works for them and that might be nowhere near 50/50 and parents should respect this. There might be lots of occasions where a parent cannot facilitate what a child wants to do and they should step back and evaluate the arrangement based on what the child is saying. It’s all about the child!

Many parents brow beat and guilt trip dc into 50:50 because it’s “fair”. Fair to whom?

If we take it purely from what the child would want then the parents would likely never split up.

More to the point, how is it fair to the child to tell them "You know how you have two parents you love? You're now only going to see one of them every other weekend. Hope you don't miss them too much!"