Why should walk-out dads have shared custody of children?

[Cassandrasays]

Does anyone have experience of this? My husband has said he wants to divorce, has moved out , stopped paying towards the family - he now says that his lawyers advise him that he can have 50% custody of the children. How can this be fair. The children are so upset by the situation, the last thing they need is to be shuttled from one household to another.

Hi there. Long story short, I've had experience in this and my ex wanting 50/50 care. He is entitled to it, but I think you have a massively better case and not because he walked out-because kids need routine and a home. if the kids are over 11 as well their opinions really count. I'd advise a 'collaborative law solution' maybe look into it. I found that the 50/50 thing is very much more focussing on male pride and also trying to avoid as much on maintenance as possible. It is obvious, even to a court, that kids do not thrive under a 50% care arrangement. I have struggles with the exact same thing with my ex. It's been like talking to a brick wall and I've found the only way to get through has been to get solicitors to say what is right. I don't know your ex so I can't generalise but it sounds like it might be a bot of a battle :/ but stay strong and arm yourself with legal information and also your motherly instinct. If there's any more detailed info I can help with let me know :) Kids need their mums more, I'm convinced. Men seem to not get over their own pride for their kids well. Regardless of of why you guys broke up, the wellbeing of the kids is still paramount. How have they taken it?

The reason is because the decisions are made from the perspective of the child. No matter how badly one or both adults are behaving to each other, the children have two parents and their right to continue their relationship with both trumps convenience.

Because he still loves his children and wants to be involved in their lives?

Children do best when they have 2 involved parents- they need a mother and a father. It's probably not very trendy to say that and they will probably hundreds of posters all saying that I'm wrong, but children need both male and female role models.

I'm sure if you asked children in this situation, they would all say they wanted their parents to stay together. If that's not possible, then the next best thing is to have 2 parents actively engaged with their children's lives.

Oh, and your children don't belong to you- they are people in their own right who should always come first.

HI Im sorry to hear about your situtation. I might not say what you want to hear but I think that where a father WANTS to have shared custody then unless there is a safety is strong reason why not, he should. There are all kinds of reasons why people walk out on a relationships or marriages and more often and not it isnt anyting to do with the children. If they are used to having a dad then whether he is at home or in another home, they will still want and need one.
Also, thinking further down the line, if you meet someone else it means you get to have some time with that person while the kids are with dad and vice versa. It sends a good message to them that just because youre not together, doenst mean you stop being mum and dad

Cassandra
I have no experience of this, but you have more chance of someone seeing this if you post in the right section. You have posted by mistake in "Bloggers" topic.

If you click report and ask MNHQ, they can move the thread to an area that gets more traffic.

Good luck.

The answer to the question in your title is: Because a "walk-out dad" is often walking out on his relationship with his wife, not his relationship with his children.

There is, though, a significant difference between "shared residency" as a legal concept and 50:50 care. Shared residency means that both parents are regarded as equally important in the lives of the children. If one parent is awarded sole custody then he/she can make all the important decisions about the child - school, medical care, holidays - and the other parent can be completely ignored. If a court orders shared residency then such issues should be discussed and agreed between the parents (as the Parental Responsibility laws require if both parents have PR but there is no residency order in place)

A shared residency order does not mean the children have to spend half their time with one parent and half with the other. 50:50 can work and it can work brilliantly. Courts do sometimes order 50:50 care when it's in the best interests of the children, particularly when both parents have been heavily involved in raising the children. But it's relatively uncommon.

"I found that the 50/50 thing is very much more focussing on male pride and also trying to avoid as much on maintenance as possible."

What an ugly display of prejudice. That might apply to your ex but it is by no means universal.

This father pushed for 50:50 because I wanted to continue being a proper, involved father to my children rather than an every-other-weekend dad who only gets a few hours to cram in a relationship. It was nothing to do with maintenance - I was still paying my ex £350 a month even though I had the children just as much as she did plus she was receiving the Child Benefit etc. I know a number of other fathers who did, and do, much the same for much the same reasons.

Strangely, when my children then came to live with me full-time (long story) the CSA had to pursue my ex for years before she managed to start reliably paying any maintenance whatsoever.

"It is obvious, even to a court, that kids do not thrive under a 50% care arrangement."

That varies. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes it doesn't. Courts can, and do, order 50:50 when they feel it is the best option.

Snorbs - I can assure you that in this case dad has walked and we are all taking the consequences. And there's lots of mid-life-crisisers who do.

When the sky has just fallen in on children's stability and happiness I absolutely disagree that it is in their best interest to be shuttled from one household to another. Children need somewhere to call home, where all their stuff is and where the daily routines we wax lyrical about in other parts of this website can be maintained. This is not about who 'owns' the children - on the contrary - its about keeping some normality in their lives.

Where mum has done most of the day to day caring - whether she works or not - this situtation should be supported by the courts. It is a massive political correctness to suggest that maternal and paternal roles are inter-changeable. They're both really important - but often very different relationships.

I am happy to support my husband having whatever access to the children he likes - for the childrens' sake they need to feel at home somewhere, and that has always in the past been with me. This is not about convenience - its about their security.

Where a Dad has been the primary carer the same might well apply in reverse. What I'm saying is that a presumption in favour of 50 50 care is inviting legal wrangling - and I have to agree with SarahJ (thx) - the competitive instinct in alot of men - coupled by aggressive legal advice is a toxic mixture, particularly if they can use this to get off paying maintenance.

And anyway - why can't a woman's view not be taken into account alongside the needs of the children - I have a basic and fundamental need to be allowed to be a mother to my children. If this is an inconvenience to an ex who has walked out then he is the one who should take the consequences of his actions.

I left my ex. Does that mean I should have less than 50% contact with my daughter?

I know a bloke who believes that he need not pay child maintenance as his wife walked out on him and so she should take the consequences of her actions.

I think he's an idiot who is confusing his animosity towards his ex-wife with his responsibilities towards his DC.

When someone chooses to leave a relationship they are choosing to leave the adult person - nobody wants to hurt their children but it is ridiculous to blame the person who has chosen to leave rather than stay in an unhappy marriage. As the child "victim" of adults staying together for the sake of the children I think it is far less healthy for the children than separating but with both parents staying involved.

Read the single parents thread and see all the threads where one parent is struggling because the other parent doesn't want to know and be glad that your ex, while accpeting that the 2 of you cannot live together, still wants to play an active role in his childrens lives!

I have DC's from a past relationship and my ex is not in a position to offer shared care however he has as much contact as he can fit around work and other commitments and good indirect contact too.

You are both your children's parents, equally and are both entitled to make choices on their behalf until they are old enough to make them for themselves, regardless of who made the difficult decision to end the relationship between the 2 of you. I firmly believe that fathers are just as capable as mothers of playing a nuturing role and many do so very successfully.

I think you would be better placed trying to co-parent rather than trying to play the "Mum knows best" card because if it does end up in court you might not find them in agreeance with you. I've seen others go down that path and regret it.

When a man wants the best for his children he does not stop paying towards family expenses when he walks out. I don't think he does have the childrens best interests at heart (from the very little we know).

In an ideal world (after the parents staying together - happily) the children would stay in one house and the parents shift in week & week about. Most adults think that's fairly unworkable and so I really don't see why they expect children to do it - most children who have been brought up this way say it was horrible (though of course, not all). I think one of the parents has to sacrifice having the children as much as they would like to, to give the children a more stable daily life. It doesn't mean they can't have lots of holiday time with the other parent etc Not ideal - but what is?

What happens if mum really does know best. When otherwise children are put into a destabilised situation?

It all depends on how the breakup happened and was managed by the one doing the leaving ... in an ideal world we would be mature and able to communicate and see the best for the kids. The parenting relationship would continue and be worked on. In reality it isn't so. Not paying for the kids is selfish, but you can't legislate against selfishness. If the OPs lawyer is halfway decent and preferably a member of Resolution then they will steer exH towards putting the children first. He may be able to argue for 50:50 and that is probably the maximum he will get, but that doesn't mean it is advisable. Keep a diary, keep records, think what you want and come up with a couple of alternatives and then if possible head towards mediation. Men see this as a matter of pride, what to win even when they have lost iyswim. You need to think about what is best for you and the family depending on DCs ages, schooling, friendships, where he lives etc, etc

"What happens if Mum really does know best..."

In most cases both parents should be given equality in parenting - everyone has different views and opinions (this applies to couples who are still together) but good parenting happens when people can see another point of view and compromise. In some cases of course one parent is not as fit/capable as the other and that situation would then need to be decided by the courts. A person who thinks the other parent should have less jurisdiction simple because they chose to leave the relationship is not looking at the big picture imo and is not really basing the decision on what is important to the children.

Of course not paying maintenence is questionable, however if the parent is seeking shared care then maintenence may not be applicable anyway as the parents will be sharing the costs associated with raising the child anyway.

I'm not pro mothers or fathers but it does really sadden me to see parents at loggerheads when it's patently obvious that the best thing for children, other than 2 happy parents living together and sharing the parenting is going to be 2 happy parents living apart and sharing the parenting and that may look different in different families but shouldn't be dictated by one parent solely who thinks they know best.

Totally amazed by all these responses that albeit citing the law at me have absolutely no humanity or sympathy with my situation - thanks for that you guys, big help. With the virtuous exception of SJS - for which eternal thanks for some heartfelt advice.

sorry chipping in and not sorted - just hard to hear some of the stuff on mummy being shelf and wanted to look after her kids stuff previous

Op, I think people are just answering the question you asked in your title. I don't think people are lacking in sympathy, I'm certainly not and I do feel for you and the difficult situation you find yourself in.

However as someone who has been on pretty much all sides of marital breakdown as an adult and as a child, I think the important thing is ensuring that you separate your very natural and understandable anger and upset from what is really and truly in the best interests of the children. I'm not saying it's easy - having been a single Mum myself (I am now remarried) I know that it isn't, but it is important that the children are allowed to see as much as humanly possible of both parents, regardless of the reason for the breakdown of the marriage.

Feeling that and answering to that effect in no way means people do not have sympathy for your situation, as I'm sure that's lots do and many will have been in similar situations themselves.

Just wanted to add that equal responsibility equals 50:50 parenting. You've got to walk the walk if you want to talk the talk. I bet your ex hasn't even thought of how to do it, what it entails ... I'm sorry but while it would be best in the best of all possible worlds for children to spend equal time with both and feel that they had two homes, it is the parents who set the manner of how that will work. Have a look at co-parenting and see the plans. To be able to do that both sides have to be mature, able to communicate, able to always put the children's needs above their own feelings. It requires a helluva stronger parenting relationship that perhaps existed when you were together. You're ex walked, he has to prove himself ready to be an equal parent with you and you with him. Think of it like a job share, it's a business arrangement and one that has to be developed. Mediation is worth a try, even some kind of relate or family counselling but what they need right now is stability and then the chance to grow into whatever arrangement transpires and you both as parents need to be able to work together to alter those arrangements as DCs grow. Think you are right to be angry, right to see how that impacts on the DCs. Who knows what is best for children in every situation, you are closest to them, you are the best person to judge. But good on you for asking. Big thumbs up to you.

Another wind up merchant. Do not feed.

Problem is one parent screws the pooch and expects the other half to suck it up for the sake of the children.

In this respect they completely abuse the wronged partner, expecting them to put the children first, demanding their right to a relationship with the children and the other half just has to wear it.

That can be taken on either the male or female part, by the way!

It sucks if you are the wronged party.

well if he has them 50 % of time at least he will be paying their keep 50% of the time.

dc probably love their dad so if he is fit parent then some thing equating 50/50 sounds perfectly reasonable - Dc dont then miss out on either parent.

I always get p'd off with the opinions on here about 50:50 shared parenting. I don't see why any child should be made to live in 2 different places and be told it is what is best for them. Would any of the posters who claim 50:50 is the best for the children want to live in two places themselves. Probably not! OP - do what you think is best for your children. They have been left by one parent -they need you to be the one who gives them security.

The reports on shared parenting independently commissioned all over the internet actually seem to encourage that Children who have (more than anything) 50/50 contact or there abouts with both parents are actually much bettern off psychologically, future prospects etc.

The fact is that currently under the CSA there are over 600,000 cases where the assessment is nil. So even by those figures... how could "dads" be wanting 50/50 just to reduce maintenance?

The best solution is for a child to have a relationship with both parents equally imo. People may say otherwise for selfish reasons or their own experiences which they think "just because it happened to me... must mean it happens to everyone".

To re-iterate what someone said earlier in the post, i have my child several nights per week but i haven't called the CSA in and every month i pay £50.00+ what i need to... will i get this back from a spiteful ex? No... do i think that all women are like this... of course i don't.