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.

Fathers love their children just as much as mothers do. (apart from feckless parents who walk away or are arses in other ways!)

Why should it be the father who has to hardly ever see his child?

When the child is old enough - ask them what they want. After all, it's their life.

But until that time, you should do everything in your power to make sure that both parents are equally involved in their childrens lives.

However, I can see how 50/50 where the child lives in 2 homes could be quite disruptive for them. Maybe 2 ways of doing things, 2 sets of rules, maybe the homes aren't close to each other so what about friends? school?

I think the child needs one home, with whichever parent has shown the court that they can provide the better environment for the child (and/or whichever parent is the preference of the child where possible), but lots and lots and LOTS of contact with the other parent. I mean seeing and / or speaking to them every day or near as damn it and lots of involvement in all aspects of their life (school, coming to performances, after school/weekend activities etc) - and some non-resident parents claim they can't do that - well, if you still lived together you'd do it, wouldn't you? So you can. (unless you moved miles and miles away of course)

I have been reading this thread with interest, as I am about to explore this scenario with my ex!

I agree that father's should have equal rights, but equally so should the children.

I can not see how any child can be in a settled state of mind if they are constantly being moved between homes, unless of course the homes are next door to each other and the parents get on extremely well, which in my experience is extremely rare, although not impossible.

The children should have the right to a stable settled relationship with which ever parent is the main carer, and should not be pushed from pillar to post because one of the parents feels that they have a 50% share of the child.

It is like the judgement of Solomon; two mothers were arguing over who was the rightful mother of an infant, the case was taken before Solomon, he suggested that he cut the baby in half so that it was shared equally between the two, the true mother protested that she would rather give up the baby than have it harmed, Solomon awarded the baby to her.

'the true mother protested that she would rather give up the baby than have it harmed, Solomon awarded the baby to her.'

I don't somehow think that the mother is going to say that the DC needs to be with one parent and so therefore she will walk away and let the father be the main carer! If she doesn't want to do that I think that it is very unfair to expect the father to do it!
It isn't a nice situation but the DC has to come first. The parents need to live close together and be in close contact and agree on basic rules etc. If they manage that I can't see why the DC can't be happy 50/50. Unfortunately there isn't a neat solution and I don't see why one parent only gets weekends and the other is hands on, just because they are female.

I don't think it's really about 'love' or who loves the children more and I think that's why this is so emotionally charged.

It's about who can provide what for the children. That shouldn't really be equated with love.

My sons would love to have 50/50 with their dad, unfortunately it's not viable or I would do it. it doesn't sound heinous to me, he's their dad, not a random hobo!

' I mean, can you imagine living your life between two houses? Just how disorientating and unsettling it would be?

It is only dreadful for them if you make it so and divide their loyalties. Sad though it is for OP, you have to leave your feelings out of it and make it work for the DCs. Treat it as normal and they will see it that way.

MY needs as a gender are not going to be allowed to disrupt my children's relationship with their father. They are two entirely different things and need not be linked in any way.

What could I say? "I don't get equal pay levels so you can only see daddy 40% less han 50/50, sorry boys!"

It is about who can provide what for the children, and as long as it is a warm stable home then that should be acceptable, even if they don't see 50% of the absent parent.

If a partner chooses to walk away from their responsibilities without first thinking of the children then I don't see that its their right to have 50% care of those children.

If however a couple split and agree to share the children equally, then yes that is acceptable that they should have the children equally.

As someone who is living a combination of 'what the children want' with a baseline of 50:50 if possible I feel it doesn't work that well for the children. The children are perfectly happy with it but keeping the children happy is not the only objective of parenting.

My DCs are teenagers, and the problem we have is when things get tough they can flit from one parent to the other. Those of us with teenagers know how slippery they can be about things they don't want to do, and now they can just escape.

XH and I are pretty consistent about what we expect but we are both lone parents and keeping a firm grip on what's going on can be hard. From small stuff like putting clothes into the laundry basket to big stuff like college attendance they have rather more freedom than I would like at times

I have to disagree with the OP.

My DP and his exW do 50:50 for the DSSs and it has worked out very well! Not awful for anyone! It's been going on for several year and is set to continue - it's a non-event in our household, bar the actual negotiation of agendas which change every year, but the children aren't really aware of that.

This is the norm where I come from, and the children from divorced families I know there would have been devastated not to have that time with their fathers. What it does mean is that divorcing parents have to organise the whole divorce- where they're going to live etc etc- around the needs of the children. Don't see a problem with that.

Cory, where do you come from?

i dont agree at all. Fathers are so important and it breaks my heart when children only see their Dads every other weekend. I cant imagine how these Dads cope. anything that means dads get more acess is good in my mind. I appreciate that schooling etc need to be taken into account, and this could make a clean 50/50 cut difficult

have only really skimmed most of this thread (pesky children!) but it seems to be an interesting one.

One thing I have noticed mentioned is that ti will disruptive for children to be "constantly" oved between 2 homes.

that is going to happen in any case in most divorces/separations. It is purely the amount of time spent in each of the 2 homes that is being discussed.

And in my experience (both as a step child and as a step mother), I think it would be of greater benefit to the children to have ore time with the non-residential parent - right up to 50%

this doesn't mean swapping homes ech night, or even every 2 nights. it is about solid blocks of time spent with each parent.

if a couple separates, and it is ok for the children to spend 2, maybe occasionally 3, nights over a weekend with the NRP, then how would it be any more disruptive to have that ona weekly basis?

surely it becomes less disruptive, as it is a regular par tof the children's lives.

I found it a hell of a lto more disruptive to be missing out on whole chunks of my father's time - we saw him (when he was not being an arse - sadly it didn't all go smoothly) every couple of weeks for a weekend, and there was so much that had happened (on both sides) tha tit was impossible to feel comfortable. it felt as though we didn't know him. like walking in halfway through a play and not being able to catch up fully on the plot.

and I know that is how my stepchildren feel sometimes now too.

what would have helped in both cases would be more time spent with the fathers concerned. my stepchildren (adults now) still feel the need to run every contact time past their mother. if dh wants to see them at university, they have to check with her. if we ask them here for christmas, they ahve to checkwith her. and not just in a courtesy way. there si far too much imbalance in the parenting stakes to probably ever be rectified now. and all because some judge thought every other weekend was "right" for the situation (because it is the norm)

so now, my stepchildren feel immense sadness over teh fact that dh sees our children every day (well, he doesn't, actually, due to work contraints). but it doesn't matter how often we say "come over more often" - it has been decreed nearly all their lives that they only spend a certain amount of time with dh, and so that is what they do.

"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?"

I grew up living like this - I was with my mum Monday - Thursday and my Dad Friday - Sunday from the age of about 12/13.

It wasn't perfect but I wouldn't say it was disorientating or unsettling. Let's face it, plenty of wealthy families live their week in London and their weekend at their place in the country and no-one moans about that! And as a result, I have a fantastic relationship with both my parents - I doubt I'd be so close to my dad otherwise. I'm sure my mum missed us at weekends, just as I'm sure my dad missed us during the week.

The only frustration was not being able to spend as much "fun" time with my mum as I would have liked because we were mainly with her in the week and doing homework etc - holidays etc became much more important.

I think 50-50 is fine and doable from teens onward. The main thing that is disorienting and upsetting is hostility between parents - my parents had an amicable split and kept any discussions and disagreements behind closed doors. THAT's what should be focussed on and fixed, IMO.

"I can not see how any child can be in a settled state of mind if they are constantly being moved between homes, unless of course the homes are next door to each other and the parents get on extremely well, which in my experience is extremely rare, although not impossible."

In my case the homes were near each other (near enough to go to the same school for eg) and yes, my parents arranged their lives to make that possible.

In terms of getting on extremely well, I'm not sure that's actually necessary, all you have to do is be civil and keep talking. If that's not possible then the major damage will not come from 50/50 residency but from the continuing animosity between the parents.

I & my 2 younger brothers were 50:50 res children.

My dad was awarded custody - his compassion for my mum meant that he changed this to 50:50. (I should add that my mum was denied custody because of something that I'm sure would be regarded as discrimination were the case to be decided today which had no impact on her ability to care for us - my dad turned out more enlightened than the judge)

I thought it might be useful to share my experience & thoughs.

My parents lived 1 mile from each other - both in the catchment area for my primary & secondary school.

Logistically it was a nightmare especially once I was a teenager - imagine having to move all you belongings, clothes, cd's school books etc etc on a weekly basis

Emotionally it was fine
I was 7, my youngest brother was 3, we quickly got used to the idea. At times I missed the parent I wasn't with - this is inevitable 50:50 care or shorter visits.

I think it helepd that my parents communicated, rules were pretty much the same, although my dad was more lenient. Both my parents really tried to put our needs first - where they lived , how they worked etc etc.

rageagainstthe50res " I would LOVE to meet this superdad, who as carmen says, does the cleaning, priortises kids over pub etc" - you can meet my dad if you like - when I was a child he met this requirement more than my mum did

Theyoungvisiter - cross posted - took a long time to write my post with dd2 demanding attention! Interesting to see the similarities (& differences) in our perception of this

"Both my parents really tried to put our needs first - where they lived , how they worked etc etc."

I absolutely agree wittyfestivename. THAT'S the key and anything else is pure selfishness IMO.

Also, wrt to fathers who clean, stay home from the pub etc, if you are a single dad then you HAVE to do all that. It's not a matter of prioritising, there's no-one else to do it.

Yes, when my parents were together my mum probably did do more of the cleaning and housework. But once my dad was in his own place obviously he cleaned it, and did it very well. Any social life was conducted on the nights he didn't have us - in fact in my teen years I was more usually the one at the pub.

Sorry x posted with your other post wittyfestivename!

It is interesting - it sounds like both our parents made it work by being grown up and sensible.

I'm interested that you found it harder as a teen, I never did it as a younger child so just assumed it would have been harder.

I did find it a pain packing my bag every Thursday night but my homes (like yours) were only about a mile apart so I tended just to go over and grab anything I had forgotten. And as we got to be older (16/17) I became more assertive about saying "actually I'll stay at mum's tonight" or "it'd be more convenient for me to crash at Dad's so I can go to x tomorrow". I arranged the residency to suit me much more as I got older and they were happy with this.

I did feel like my mum's house was more "home" and my dad's house was more "visiting" but that was mainly, I think, because my mum stayed in the marital home at first and my dad bought a new, smaller place. It took a while for enough of my possessions to migrate over.

i do this and it works. It is an arrangement that ex and i have fine tuned between ourselves. My son is 4 and a very happy little chap indeed.

We live 10 miles apart. DS is with me fri-mon and his dad mon afternoon to friday lunchtime. This is because his dad's work is at weekends and on the road. This is DS routine, which at the moment is not being adhered to because of his dad's work schedule during the Christmas season. Because he knows the routine, and knows we will be going back to it after Christmas he is fine with it. We Home School so the school routine isn't an issue for us. We have the same rules of discipline in both households. DS is free to move his stuff between houses as he sees fit, but doesn't because he has everything he needs in both places. (we have doubled up on favourite toys etc)

Why do we do this? because it is the best thing for our son.......now, at this moment in time. We are both aware this may change as he grows, and we will then sit down and re-negotiate what is best for him.

My ex is a very capable father, he does the laundry, cooks, sits up all night when ds is poorly. I have no more right over our son than he does.

I know i am lucky that i get on very well with ex. We are friends.....

50/50 is not awful for my son. It is very hard for both me and his dad when he is with the other....there would be something wrong with us if we didn't ache for him when he was away.
There is nothing for me to 'fight back' against.

I think people forget that a divorce is disruptive in any situation - however, I cannot see how seeing a father for the weekend every 2 weeks is less of a routine than spending a week at each. I cannot understand how any father could accept a meagre arrangement such as a fortnightly weekend - kids have the right to develop equally strong relationships with their parents (it will probably be a different kind of relationship with each, but an important one nevertheless).

As for the OP's suggestion of taking things "back" - it would be simply immoral to use children as a way to rebalance gender opportunities. Being female does not give you more rights over the fate of another human being, let it be a child or otherwise.

Those of you who have said, if you don't like it, don't get divorced or spilt up.... I am astounded. Do you really think that people who split up just do it on a whim? That we don't agonise over the decision to leave our partners? That we tot up the possibility of losing our mental health completely at the hands of an emotionally abusive and sometimes violent partner and mark that against our children being brought up in a "normal" 2.4 children two-parent family?

You are deluded. Really, deluded.

If I had not left my ex-p my child would have no mother at all, simple as that. Eventually my xp would have driven me to take my own life. He wore me down emotionally until I was a sobbing wreck. The impact of that on my child cannot be underestimated. And yet some of you glibly state that we should have stayed together "for the sake of the children". It is confict, not separation, which damages children.

I truly hope that those of you who state
"if it means so much for you that your child doesn't have to split their life and loyalties between two warring parents, stay together. Can't/won't? You'll have to face the consequences then."
never have to be in the position I was in.
I am stunned by some of these replies.

I think that although younger children are creatures of habit they also find that they can adapt more easily. Being able to break the routine i.e. as theyoungvisiter says go over & pick up forgotten things, change weeks for the child's convenience etc etc is important & is another sign that parents are putting the childs needs first. As a parent you need to check your child is ok with arrangements & adapt/change things if it isn't working.

"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'."

Well you could argue that it is only when we share parenting equally - give fathers just as much credit for being able to parent as well as mothers - that we will acheive true equality in other areas.

And it isn't a mother's 'right' to be the primary parent.