Should 50/50 custody be the default?

[RatsRatsRatss]

What would you say were the reasons a parent doesn’t see much of their child after separation and divorce? Why do you think this happens?

Would you judge a parent who doesn’t see much of their kid?

Do you believe (abuse/neglect/deadbeat parents) aside that the default after divorce should be 50/50 custody? Should a child have a right to a relationship with both parents after separation?

interested to hear what everyone’s opinions are

You go first

Every situation is different.

50/50 may work for many - but not for everyone.

has to be a case by case basis and child centred.

What are your opinions?

There are a lot of different questions in your post.

Think it depends what is feasible. 50/50 only works if both parents live close to each other/ close enough to the child’s school. Otherwise it’s probably fairer in the child to find a different arrangement.

I think this is so tricky and on my mind at the moment as my brother is going through divorce and wants to be an active dad. The divorce wasn’t his idea and came out of the blue for him so from his perspective why should he only see his daughter every other weekend?

On the one hand I sympathise with people like my brother and in his case specially of course I want him to have his DD half the time. He’s a great dad and selfishly I would like to be able to see my niece as well. It’s important for children to feel like they have two parents not one parent and one family friend.

On the other hand I think it must be terribly unsettling for the child to have two homes. Always on the move, all your things in different places.

I don’t know

Yes it should be default.

but we shouldn’t force people who don’t do it with legal sanctions. We need to educate men to understand the responsibilities that come with parenthood

DD is with her Dad eow. We are slightly too far apart for 50/50 and it wouldn't be true 50/50 anyway. I would still do homework/reading/drs appts so no, I don't see why he should get every weekend. That said, my neighbour has his children 50/50 and everyone seems ok so it can work!

Several of my ex's had DC they didn't see or pay for. I didn't want kids. I'm glad I didn't have any with them.

Current DP wanted kids. It was we have them in our future or agree to part. It wasn't an ultimation just kids were in his future plants.
He was also practical and explained if we split he wanted the DC full time or at least 50:50 as why would he leave his DC with someone he didn't want to be around.

DC at now 20 and we're still together.

I do think some conversations work best upfront.

Kids deserve both parents being an active part in their lives. What that looks like for residency etc should be worked out with kids interests first and central.

50/50, should be the starting point with each parent's "share" going up or down based on their working hours, proximity to school, how involved they were pre-separation etc. Children need stability, especially after a divorce, so constantly moving between homes isn't often the best option. A predictable schedule which allows both parents (assuming they are competent and not abusive etc) to maintain a good relationship and the child"s varied needs to be met us what is needed.

I believe a child has a right to a relationship with both parents. I do believe 50/50 should be the starting point/the default however I do understand that every case is different such as one parent working long hours or living far away. But I think when you have two willing parents shared custody should be the default.

50/50 is shitty for kids. Absolutely parent-centred. Kids need a steady home, a base. Not to be shifted between two households constantly.

50/50 where the kid stays in the home and the parents take turns is a good set up. But I reckon not many parents are up for that…

No. It doesnt work for everyone, particularly babies and toddlers. Babies should not have to forgo breastfeeding to spend 50% of their time with their fathers.

I don't think 50/50 is ever better for kids really. Unless the parents live within walking distance of each other and the child can chose where they go. Young children need a permanent base. 50/50 is only better for the parent. Kids should stay in the routine they were in pre divorce if possible. Dad can see them for dinner a couple of times a week and EOW is probably better for kids in most cases.

Shared custody should absolutely be the default assumption, but that doesn't have to mean equal amounts of time with the child. A good parent can still be an active, significant person in their child's life with less than 50% of their time. The child's actual needs and best interests need to be prioritised over the parents' preferences, however much they will undoubtedly miss their children if they are not primarily responsible for them.

50:50 should mean living next to each other and both near the school though. That’s the grown up sacrifice parents have to make when they divorce

It’s difficult I agree. I do believe that there needs to be something in place for non resident parents to have contact with their children if there is not a shared care agreement. So something like a minimum amount of time that a child spends with their non resident parent to maintain their relationship. It is a complicated process I know,

I believe a child has a right to a relationship with both parents.
I do believe 50/50 should be the starting point/the default

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to have a relationship with the NR parent?

50/50 is the default right any parent can exercise but many choose not to. Certainly I had to practically force my ex to see our DD when she was little.
It's often not practical to do and by and large children hate being 50-50 - there's quite a lot of research on this

Location and shift/ work pattern would be the first thing to consider.

Some dads cant' be bothered to see their children, let alone pay for them

Some mums use the children as a weapon and try to punish their ex but refusing them access.

(and vice-versa, but it seems a bit rarer that dads refuse access to the mums)

Some parents are shit basically. Others are great and juggle around their other commitment the best way they can.

No. Imagine packing a bag every few days/even every week, never feeling stable at ‘home’. I don’t care what anyone says. One home with maybe every other weekend or daytime visits for the other parent. Sad though that is, kids deserve stability and it’s about them not adults’ feelings.

What do you mean work pattern? You can’t refuse to parent because it doesn’t align with your work schedule.

you use child care like the rest of us

I think “50/50 by default” prioritises fairness to both parents over what is actually best for the children. 50/50 can be the best option, under some circumstances, for some children. For a lot of children it’s very destabilising and a horrible way to live. They have half of two homes and aren’t truly settled anywhere.

that's also bollocks.

Many children have 2 bedrooms, 2 homes, and feel absolutely stable with a fairly even split. It's down to parents attitude, not their schedule.
It's more than important than they feel at home in both house, and feel like "home" - not like a visitor popping by twice a month at best.

If they don't feel stable, up to the parents to work it out, and make sure they feel safe and secure in each home

Not until there’s closer to 50-50 care within relationships. Many relationships break down because men leave all the child rearing other than the fun stuff to their partners. If that’s how little they are interested in seeing their children and in being a parent, then how can 50-50 be said to be what’s best for the kids

It should be from birth when in a relationship. However as most families do not share the load then the status quo should continue if they separate.

I think 50/50 parenting would be better than 50/50 custody.