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?

the original question should have been ‘should parents do what is best for the children.’

for most parents I would hope, the answer to that is yes. But that could be any one of numerous possibilities depending on that particular family, and that particular family only. It might look like divorce/not divorce/nesting/50/50/70/30/EOW whatever.

the point many people are trying to make is that it wasn’t the 50/50 that was the problem, it was the parents.

There are so many adults who didn’t have a close relationship with their dads because they saw him every other weekend at McDonald’s. That sort of thing causes harm too. Would I choose 50/50 for myself? Yes and I know loads of adults who do this for work - they live in one place during the week and another at the weekend. Also if it was a question of losing my relationship with a loving parent, I would of course do 50/50.

If the default was that dads got residence of kids, women would say 50/50 was great and pushed for it. It’s always “it’s bad for the kids, oh but no I would never want to just see my kids every other weekend”.

YANBU. DH's mate is divorcing his wife and has this arrangement for his 3 year old. The two of them don't speak, cannot co-parent at all and the constant to and fro must be incredibly unsettling.

My heart is breaking for that little girl.

That's a totally different issue and not much to do with the 50/50. Thats just the dad being a twat.

My older kids dad was like that. He was supposed to have them eow yet would pissball about and palm them off onto his mother or generally do anything he could to piss me off no matter how it affected the kids. Oh he he still didn't pay any maintenance

I haven’t RTFT, so don’t know if it’s already been mentioned, but if parents are on good terms post divorce/separation, the idea of ‘nesting’ would undoubtedly be best for the children. The children stay in their home, and the parents move between the family home and perhaps an apartment locally.

I don't think I follow. Parent becomes single, blends family with new partner, possibly introduces new step siblings or half siblings. Does it make a difference if the parent is widowed or divorced, if the new blended family doesn't work?

We'll have to agree to disagree. I have no skin in the game so your last paragraph is irrelevant to me, and I'm certain most people (of any age) would hate 50/50 living.

I think 50;50 is more for the parents benefit than the childs. I think in many cases it's best for the child to have one main home with whichever parent was their primary carer, and eow and plenty of school holidays as well as plenty of phonecalls with the other.

I think you'll be desperately unhappy only seeing your children every other weekend, a few days a month etc, knowing you're handing over money for a life and upbringing you aren't really a part of.

Oh, sorry - were you assuming you'd be the 'most of the time' parent, expecting your poor bloke to accept that scenario in a relationship that appears fine?

Selfish indeed.

And your poor mother. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The alternative is prioritising your child's needs above your own. Child benefit is £100 a month, it doesn't negate or replace child support from the non resident parent.

Oh yes, it definitely would, I know that. It's just almost all adults seem to expect that level of cooperation and self sacrifice from children but not themselves.

Thats nowhere near the same. I’m sorry but it’s just not. Not having your toys or clothes at one house is not the same as having to be financially entangled and potentially share a house with someone who treated you badly. About a third of divorces include allegations of domestic abuse - it’s very widespread. Think carefully about placing expectations on people to have to carry on that relationship through a nesting arrangement because apparently children can’t cope living in two homes. Imagine if your abusive ex had the key to your house and could effectively come and go whenever he wanted to.

The nesting idea seems ideal, in a non abusive situation.

Children are the fixed stars, all their things, their pets, ease of getting school, their friends etc all stay in the same place.

And the parents sort themselves out their own accommodation nearby so they hand over not the kids, but the keys.

If they can't bear to live in the same house then the children should not be the ones to uproot and disrupt and travel.

Of course not. But if one of the parents of the older kids is dead then they won't be having contact time with them at all.

So the widowed parent marries and has a child. Then divorces. This is the child that people saying nesting is better for.

But its not better for the older children is it If they then have to leave their home regularly to stay in a shared place so their younger sibling has a " base" with parents swapping homes

I agree OP, I don't think 50:50 is best for the kids, but sometimes the courts give no choice if the father wants the child 50%. I think children need a base or ideally to be in one house full time. Nesting, with the parents getting on well is ideal IMO.

I don't think any arrangements are ideal for children when they live in two households. They just have to make the best of it. My friend's children did one week on, one week off which they found hard at first as they missed their mum and their dad wouldn't allow even phone contact during 'his time'. But they found it easier when they were older. My friend was the one who left the marriage and she did her best to facilitate a good co-parenting relationship but her ex didn't want to and you can't force it. It's the children who pay the price when two parents can't co-operate and communicate, it's very sad.

More guilt for parents. Some people have no choice.

we really need good quality data about this, there are so many negative consequences as OP mentioned, like a child not being able to attend regular after school clubs because of parents being grabby about “their time”, parents being rigid about time leading to kids missing out, we shouldn’t just shrug and talk about the parents needs, the family court is supposed to put kids first (the pro contact culture has prevented this), it’s not about what parents want.
And yea I firmly believe the child should be with the primary parent if the other parent can’t even be available to them during their time, parenting shouldn’t be outsourced to step parents and grandparents if a child would be more settled with the primary parent.
also don’t forget one parent is almost always better at meeting the child’s emotional needs, the child will inevitably have a preference to be with them. If parents want to see their kids more they should reflect on this in case it is an obstacle

My DD chooses a 2/2/3 pattern as she doesn’t like being away from either of us for long. If at any point she feels this doesn’t work for her anymore then we will listen to that and change it

It works well because her dad and I get on well, communicate effectively, and live nearby. She has plenty of everything at both houses, so the only thing that travels with her is her stuffed animal she sleeps with. If that was forgotten then whichever parent has it would happily drive over with it

sleepovers etc, she tells us she has been invited and we let the other parent know if it falls on their time.

Yes in ideal world she wouldn’t have to bounce between houses but I can’t do anything about that (unless I want to move in with XH and the OW which is, clearly, just no) so we go with what she is most comfortable with in the circumstances and do everything we can to make it work for her

Actually the psychological research shows it’s better for kids to live with both parents post separation than for one parent to have sole custody.

What worked for me with my chicken and ex husband was making a good coparent relationship and flexibility on both sides. We never had a rigid schedule, but a fluid one which worked around everyone’s needs each month. Kids also got a say if they wanted to spend extra time at one parents home. If our plans changed I didn’t use a babysitter I’d see if their dad could have them and vice versa. We did have to commit to living close by for this all to work. They were with me around 70% of the time I guess but it was fluid. Even now my kids are at uni, If there is a problem with the kids me and my ex will pick up the phone and make sure we work as a team to get the best result for the kids. They’ve also gone through phases as they’ve got older where one maybe at one house and one at the other.
They have 2 homes.
Sadly parents focus too much on their needs and not enough on those of the children.

I wouldn’t be happy with it but I’d like to think I’d put my kids best interests above my own wants. As op has testified, it is not a great situation for kids. I’m sure some families manage it better than others - I know some who live very nearby so it makes it easier for the dc to see friends or pop between houses if needed. Also know some who literally have two sets of everything so the kids don’t have to worry about lugging things about (even PlayStations!) so it can be done thoughtfully. However I still think it must be unsettling and actually quite damaging in families where it isn’t done right.

To me the obvious answer is that the children remain in one place, and there's a second small flat close by, and mum and dad alternate in moving out.

This is the best way that focuses on the child's needs as priority, but it limits the parents - it won't work if mum wants to have a new baby with the new man & wants to stay in one place, or the same for dad.

I don't doubt your experiences, OP. But I think there's little point 'begging' your partner about any theoretical future outcomes – the person you marry will not be the person you divorce.

And in the situation I described above where there are older children who have a different parent?

And in the situation I described above where there are older children who have a different parent?

Tbh if they'd taken the approach above after the first divorce, they'd have been unlikely to start a family with a new spouse in the first place.