that 50-50 res is AWFUL for kids & mothers and women should fight back?

[rageagainstthe50res]

OK, hands up, i name-changed, because this is so emotionally charged and I don't want to be alienated from my usual threads.

BUT, AIBU to think that actually 50-50 parenting is fucking awful for kids? I mean, can you imagine living your life between two houses? Just how disorientating and unsettling it would be?

And AIBU to think that women have given away too many of their own rights in the name of 'fathers' rights?' I LOVE my father, and my DS loves hers, even though we're not together but in 99% of all parenting cases I know it is the woman who does the laundry, the packed lunches, the kiss it betters, the costumes for the nativity.

We don't have gender equality in this country - salary discrepancies, violence against women, flagrant misogyny in the media etc. Yet the few rights we do hold - that we should be the primary parent because we grow our children inside us and feed them from our own bodies, we now glibly throw away to 'fathers'. I AM NOT SAYING FATHERS SHOULD BE DENIED ACCESS TO THEIR CHILDREN. But I do think 50-50 is too much. And you're telling me that women don't HATE having their kids only 50% of the time? I'm sure most of them are absolutely miserable. A weekend off, great, but 50-50 just sounds heinous.
REally, I'm not being an arse, I'm just massively curious.

50:50 always reminds me of the Judgment of Solaman. Two women both claimed to be the mother of a child. Neither would back down. Solaman said fine, I'll take this sword and split him down the middle. The true mother said no, obviously, and the child was returned to her.

50:50 may be nice for the parent who has not been the primary carer, but in all but very rare circumstances, it's not the best option for the children.

Oops, my spellcheck automatically convered Soloman to Solaman, for some bizarre reason. (Actually I suspect it's because spellchecks are written by computer geeks.)

Someone used the judgement of solomon earlier-again to prove that the mother should have him! I think that what would happen was that if the DC was to be cut down the middle both parents would give him to the other and then you are back to square one! Why isn't it the best option edam? If it is to be one why should it be the mother? If you ask adults if they get on better with their father or their mother you will get a split across the board. If people name the mother they won't say it was because of the primeval force of giving birth and bfeeding!

FWIW My DSD has had 50:50 since a toddler and it hasn't ruined her life.

At times it has been v difficult for my DH and his exP but they have managed to keep DSD at the centre of their minds.

DH has remained an equal parent to my DSD whose relationship would certainly have suffered had he only been able to see her at weekends. Why shouldn't her relationship with her father be considered important?

I'm sure it tore her mum apart to miss her for a week at a time but similarly my DH suffered terribly when she wasn't there (she's much older now) He described it as missing a limb.

The OP is just wrong in her statement that women do 99% of the work. My DH genuinely does 50% with our DS and that is fully down to him being allowed to be a proper dad on his own with DSD where he had to know school routine, when gym kit was needed etc. My dad certainly didn't know any of that and my parents were together.

Of course there have been downsides - as equal parents there have sometimes been major disagreements in what approach to take and my DSD is excellent at avoiding trouble / work by escaping to either mum or dad when necessary, but which parenting agreement is perfect? Even if you're all one big happy family?

Pisces - no, you've got me wrong, I think it should be the primary carer who continues being the primary carer to ensure as much stability as possible during a very unstable time. Unless there are very good reasons why not - but that should be the starting point.

Often the primary carer does happen to be the mother, but that is a choice both parents made at some point and reflects our society where women do generally shoulder most of the day to day responsibility for children (and this has always been the case for most families). Where the father is the primary carer, the starting point should be that the child lives mainly with him.

Just because the adults can no longer live together, doesn't mean the child should be split in half - the aim should be to minimise disruption.

If, later on when he or she is old enough to make this decision, the child then decides he or she wants to split their time between both parents, or spend more time with the other, then fine.

(Scruffy, you'd be one of the exceptions - I'm not saying 50:50 never works, just that in most cases there is one primary carer and the child should remain mostly with that primary carer, with as much contact as is practical and possible with the non-resident parent.)

I think that if I was the father I would give up my job-being with my DC would be far more important to me. To be told that you can only be an occasional visitor in your DCs life because you were the main breadwinner seems most unfair. 50/50 can work well but only if the adults make it work.

mrsjammi, it is a choice though, however difficult. No-one stands over parents saying 'YOU, wife, stay home, YOU husband, go to work'. Circumstances may be difficult, society may not generally be set up to work that way, but if you feel passionately about it, you will do everything in your power to find a way round it.

For instance, a couple could make a very clear advance decision that once the maternity leave(s) were over, they would swap. Some friends of mine have done this, mother has gone back to work after a year's leave and the father has given up his job to look after their ds. If they were to split up, he's the primary carer and, everything else being equal, my presumption would be their child should live with him.

As I have previously said, 50-50 works only if any and all adults involved (including any step parents) are fully committed to doing what's best for the DC. I may miss my DS1 this christmas, but it's me as his mum that's missing out. DS1 will NOT be missing out, and he will be getting christmas with his stepbrother and his baby brother (no 'half' brothers here). Why just because I carried him and BF him, do I suddenly count as the 'primary carer'? His dad is just as involved as I am, he goes to parents evenings with me, and we are consistent with rewards and punishments as well. If his dad has said no computer games for 2 days, then I stick to it and vice versa. It's about me as an adult putting my feelings about his inability to keep it in his pants aside to do what's best for our son. Yeah, his dad cheated on me, not noticed where that stopped him from loving his son though, only that it stopped him loving me...I think that 50-50 is really the best thing for the child involved. It's just on us grown-ups to actually BE grown-up about everything, and to put any hurts aside.

Fine, that works for your family, no-one is stopping you.

i.e. I mean there should be a presumption that normally children stay with the primary carer unless both parents want 50:50. Rather than a presumption that 50:50 is the norm. That would cover your family, Loudlass.

But 50:50 is a relatively new concept, will be interesting to see what the children make of it when they grow up. Hope someone is doing some long-term research.

Comparing 50-50 to the judgement of Solomon is a totally ridiculous analogy for a number of reasons.

Firstly because a successful 50-50 is beneficial to the child and nothing like being cut in half (as someone who grew up a 50-50 child I can testify to this). I am sure there are cases where the child is unhappy, just as there are numerous cases where the child misses the NR parent terribly. But equating a grown-up, well thought out 50-50 arrangement to killing your child is just plain silly.

Secondly because in the judgement of Solomon the person who most loved their child was the one who gave up their rights rather than see it hurt. In today's society the parents who are mainly giving up their residency rights are fathers. So according to the judgement of Solomon logic, fathers are actually the ones showing greater love, rather than splitting their child's life down the centre they are giving up the fight. Which is plainly bollocks. Agreeing not to see your child is not an act of love.

Putting your child's best interests before your own is the true act of love, whatever residency arrangements that means.

Many fathers have given up all rights because they think it was better for the DC -but I think that it has since been proved that having a clean break with the father isn't good for the emotional long term health of the DC.

'But 50:50 is a relatively new concept, will be interesting to see what the children make of it when they grow up'

I think that it will be most interesting and my guess is that people will look back and think that the days when the father got all rights(pre 1950s) and the days when mothers got all rights (2nd half of 20th century)are unfair and damaging.
50:50 is far more difficult for the adults, they have to cope with the pain and they have to leave their anger and upset with the ex parent right out of the equation. Being an adult means that you should be able to do this, for the good of the DC. The DC has the right to 2 loving parents-they shouldn't have to get involved with why the parents no longer want to live together.

Just a thought on the equal rights issue.

In some city somewhere this week there will be a woman arguing in court that she should have custody of her children and the court (reflecting some of the views on this thread) is very likely to agree with her and regardless of the wishes of her ex husband/partner. She wilL be presumed to be the best carer because of her status as a mother. Her husband wil get visiting rights and be told to pay maintenece from his wages while the woman stays at home to look after the children.

Down the road or perhaps even in the same court building another woman will be arguing in front of an Employment Tribunal that she was unfairly treated by her employer after she has told them she was pregnant and claiming sex discrimination. A man however, could not argue sex discrimination or has any right to extended paternity leave if he wishs to look after his child after it is born.

The UK courts and society have a disjointed view of equality and I beleive it is already becoming apparent that men are increasingly unwilling to commit to having and bringing up children because the system is so squewed against them.

I'm not sure that the split presented here represents how many families work in any case. It is no longer the case that mum automatically stays at home and dad does a 9-5. In more and more families both parents work, and the primary carer thing then becomes a mathematical calculation by lawyers. My dh and I have both at times been the one who was at home more. Me when they were very small babies, and dh when he was in between jobs. However, the only thing that is used on breakup when you go the legal route is the situation at the time of the breakup. Courts almost always go for continuity.

So even though we had been working what we considered a 50:50 split because the lawyer thought that there was a couple of hours in my favour, she thought we could swing the primary presumption in my favour. I found that really uncomfortable as it just seems so adversarial.

In reality there are many different ways of being a parent, and the mother:father difference is only one of many. Mothers do things very differently from each other otherwise Mumsnet woudl be a very small and boring pace. But then the one thing that I really do believe is that if at all possible arrangements about children should come from both parents working things out together, with no court involvement.

' But then the one thing that I really do believe is that if at all possible arrangements about children should come from both parents working things out together, with no court involvement.'

I think that is the important bit, and it doesn't have to be 50:50-people can work out what suits them.
I have a problem with OP because she says should women fight back. NO women shouldn't fight back-they should work out an amicable agreement with the ex, bearing in mind that if they are bereft without their DCs their ex is equally bereft. A DC isn't a possession-they can't be fought over. Obviously compromises have to be reached.Someone has to be upset and the adults are the ones that have to take it and deal with it.

I totally agree with you there, piscesmoon. It's not a 'fight' at all, it should be sorted out with amicable discussions. Even if one party in the marriage hurt the other one, it isn't the child's problem, and the child doesn't 'belong' to either parent. Now all we need is the child benefit system to catch up with contact arrangements. Piscesmoon has hit it on the head with the word compromise. Neither parent is going to be happy with the situation 100% of the time. And I come at this after having a childhood of being a child who's divorced parents vilified each other, put me in the middle, and used me as a weapon against each other. I probably have been more receptive to 50-50 shared care due to my own childhood, and not wanting my DS to experience the same feelings of guilt and frustration of being pulled in two different directions. My ex-H also had a childhood like that, so we both decided that despite what had happened between us, we would never put our son through that. It works for us...

"Putting your child's best interests before your own is the true act of love, whatever residency arrangements that means."

Beautifully put, as was the rest of your post. I agree 100%.

That is what OP needs to bear in mind, sorbs, and forget everything else-in particular her own feelings.

Actually sex discrimination at work cuts both ways. An employer that discriminated against a father who, for example, went part-time in order to do more childcare, would be in just as much trouble as one that discriminated against a woman.

In fact I think a factor in dh's redundancy was that he was part-time (although in his case, he had another part-time job, childcare wasn't the issue). Discrimination against part-time workers is indirect sex discrimination because they are generally women but any individual man who is discriminated against could equally well take his case to a tribunal.

TheShriekingHarpy, if 'women strive for a greater balance between their family and career' and opt for p/t work, then, er, they are more likely to be the primary carer aren't they- and in the context of this debate that would make 50:50 residence with a presumably full time working husband somewhat problematic.

I do find it a bit difficult that when you go to the park, when you're out shopping, you see so very few men with children- pre-school childcare is obviously still a 'woman's job' in most cases. Yet we are supposed to presume that childcare should be 'equal' after divorce or separation- why, then, is it not so beforehand?

H has made far more effort after the divorce to actually be in for his sons because he has had to. When we were married he quite shamelessly exploited the fact that he knew I was already in with the boys to regularly go on the piss then lie around most of Saturday with a hangover claiming he could not do anything domestic such as childcare.

i don't object to the fact that he is now more involved with his children- more to the fact that he assumed that he was an equal carer before the divorce although i was the one who took the time off, worked p/t, and was stuck in with the kids when he was having fun or travelling. I did and do feel that for him 50:50 parenting was a sort of badge of honour, a way of saying to me, 'I'm as good as you-' and also a way (given our unusual circumstances) to ensure that the children remained in a location convenient to him- something that he was not at all bothered about before we divorced- i was going to move 200 miles away and he was going to come up for long weekends. Now he insists on a handover on Wednesday afternoons (to his nanny of course, not him).

Before my divorce I was totally in favour of 50:50 parenting but after the way he has used it to assert power over me I am just not so sure any more. Surely parenting arrangements should reflect the realities of married life and pre-divorce parenting not some vision of an unreal equality which never existed beforehand?

When dh and I were separated we rejigged our working lives to be with the children as much as possible when we had them, ad worked harder/longer when we didn't. Our circumstances had changed, we couldn't rely (or exploit) each other anymore.

I would expect that most parents change with the circumstances - and divorce and family split is a huge change. The trouble is when things are adversarial everything feels like an attack on the other person, whether it is or not (and often it may be because of the general anger and resentment around). When I knew dh was at home I worked late and played out, and he did the same, and the at home person resented it after a while. When it was just me and the children (or just dh and the children) that just wasn't possible so obviously we didn't do it. However we both had jobs that were happy with us flexing our time, that's not always the case.

I don't think that the past should always be used as a judge on the future, as things change over time. Again that's the advantage of being able to negotiate in the spirit of what is best for everyone, but post break up is such a nasty place to be that that can be very difficult (and even more so if there has been serious hurt or violence involved).