Who should the child live with?

[Lostinheaven]

Hi,

I’m interested in everyone’s opinion on who the children should live with after divorce/separation. My son currently spends half his time with me and half with his dad. I don’t feel this is working as he asks why he has to go stay there and when asking why he doesn’t want to go he says he doesn’t know (usually his go to if he thinks he’s getting into trouble for something). I am wondering what you’re opinions are, should I still force him to go or not? I feel it’s to much for him.
TIA.

claireangelareid I wonder if you have children and have been in the position like mine where you have been horribly betrayed by a partner. I’ve had no choice but to break up with him and consider how my DD can carry on her relationship with him without being neglected by him.

I didn’t choose this life for my daughter.

I find your comment hurtful and unnecessary.

That was not my intention I apologise

larrygrylls - the problem is exactly your way of thinking, if you share the costs you should share the children.
They are not goods to be traded, you don't pay the mum to get access to the children. It has become a norm for dads to think like you do - I pay therefore I have rights and I shall make sure I get my rights.
You and the other parent have to contribute to your biological children's upbringing, at least financially. If you have a desire to contribute with time and care it is a great thing, it is best for the child.
But, if you are not the type of parent who is willing to be an involved parent, who is not willing to do homework and socializing and clubs, healthy food and all those things that make the difference between a good life or an existence for your child than don't just exercise your rights for the sake of a financial contribution you have to make. Or as some do, to reduce the maintenance payment while doing only the bare basics for the child. I know dads who insist on having the children while being irritated by them (they are treated as inconvenient and get shouted at, punished and often neglected) but they won't let the mother look after them because they paid and they have their rights.
How is that good for the children?

Somuch,

Did you actually read my post? You addressed the first paragraph but conveniently chose to ignore the second and third which were all about the children’s well being.

A bad parent is a bad parent (and vice versa) regardless of the sex. You are pandering to the stereotype of the crafting mother who only cooks organic for the children and the ne’er do well father who sticks the kids on screens all day and feeds them junk. Just lazy stereotyping...

My ex is NRP. He has the kids stay 10-12 nights per month. Less than what I have openly facilitated.

He is their dad but does sod all parenting. He doesn't respect me as their mother. He pays minimal maintenance. He lives in accommodation that's too small. (2 years now)

I grit my teeth and suck up the shit treatment so that the kids can have a relationship with their dad.

I've paid a very heavy price. I worry he'll just keep letting them down financially and emotionally. I have to pretty much watch, wait and then pick up the pieces.

Eldest already dropping nights. I take no responsibility for her decision, she's 16. She's made up her own mind.
I assume the others will follow suit.

Gut wrenching experience tbh

I think some nrp are board of family life. When they leave the family home one of the things they like is the fact they can choose to do the bear minimum this unfortunately counts, seeing the children minimum amount. They enjoy in a seance the single life, yes they may well continue to see their children, but in my experience really take no responsibility for them.

larrygrylls - I have not created these stereotypes myself, unfortunately I have only described what is real and fairly common.
50/50 arrangements should not be the norm, I believe they should be there for those fortunate children who have two interested parents.
For those who don't, I believe significant contact with both parents is important but if one parent is making a considerably larger effort to provide better care than it is best for the child to be better looked after, regardless of the reasons one parent or the other feels entitled.
We all see the world through our own experience.
I guess from your post that your ex is a SAHM (the non working kind) and has a new partner?
I was a SAHM for a few years too, the self employed working some 20h/week, full time child carer and home carer, I don't do organic food but cook from scratch a good balanced diet. And I was not willing to accept that someone who never spent a half day on their own with the children, never cooked a meal or bought a toy or any item for children, taught a song or went to a club could suddenly become a competent parent overnight.
But the money for kids attitude demanded a 50/50 care arrangement.
He made the kids eat chili-con-carne - the spicy kind. A few years on he has moved away from chili or Chinese noodle takeaway and has some 4-5 dishes in his repertoire. He would now host kids friends and sporadically does homework. On the negative side he has stopped taking the kids to clubs, to be more precise the one club he agreed to take over and the kids are so afraid of him they never dare to ask for anything because they are terrified of being punished if they do.
He generously contributes the minimum child maintenance, he wants to have the kids 50/50 (we have 70/30) and is their dad.
What would you do in my shoes?
I know I'm not an uncommon case, not by a mile.

Somuch,

Your post sounds very heartfelt.

I am not going to give a lot of details about my own situation as it would be outing (not 50/50 but reasonably close) but, suffice it to say, I can cook competently (well, actually better than that), am well able to help with homework and know that kids need clothing and exercise. I am also teaching them sports they would never have learned otherwise and will be valuable both for fitness and socially as they grow up.

What does seem apparent, though, is you feel that you are the only parent who gives the children what they ‘need’. I am not sure children need clubs quite as much as you seem to think, for instance, or that it is a vital part of parenting. Equally, hosting the children’s friends is something that needs to be facilitated by the ex stay at home parent to begin with. They will have all the contact numbers etc. They need to accept that someone they regarded as their friend is now taking their child to play at their ex’s, not jealously guard these contacts and then have the satisfaction of saying they do all the play dates.

I don’t think parents divide up neatly by sex. Many fathers love spending quality time with their children and quite a few mothers (at least around here) think a play date consists of the children marauding around the house damaging things while they have coffee and cake with their mates.

As you say, we can only speak from our own experiences.

I have DC about 60% of the time, it's fixed days on a 2 week rotation so they are with both parent each week rather than week on/week off. I hated it, but have got used to it begrudgingly. I can see it's working well for the DC's. My opposition to it was about what I wanted, not what was best for them.

It works well, the kids do complain sometimes, but I recognise now that that tends to just mean they've been pulled up on bad behaviour in the other home recently - they complain about coming back to me sometimes too apparently. Shared care can work really well, if both parent's work at it. With parental animosity I think it could be difficult.

50/50 is fair but only for the parents. For the child it is unfair, confusing and lacks any sort of stability. I think you have to ask yourself, would you want to live between two homes? Children need stability and somewhere that’s home.

My stbxh is a every other weekend dad. He has the older two one night in 14 (ages 2 & 1) and comes to see all 3 (youngest 4 months) week 1 & 3 mon, wed, fri, and Saturday mornings. Then weeks 2 & 4 comes to see them on the Tuesday and has them Saturday 11am - Sunday 6pm.

He left for the ow and he definitely would not want 50/50 or every weekend for that matter. He’d struggle, a lot! That’s what he’s said btw, not me ‘alienated’ him.

Drawthe line
That was kind of my point. Im not sure a lot of nrp actually want them 50/50. They left for a reason and that's often that they dont like/bord of family life. Its mundane they want the single life. Obvioisly not all nrp though, i just wish it wasnt this way.

Allabitshit2019

Exactly, most have left because it’s too ‘difficult’ because being a parent gives them the choice to walk away but this isn’t just for father’s I know of a number of mums that left and never came back.

My solicitor said every other weekend is the norm. Whilst they are so young too having a week from not seeing either parent isn’t great. So I think if you were considering going a long with it then it shouldn’t be more than three days at a day and that’s a lot of to and froing xx

Three days at a time**

My controlling and abusive ex took me to court simply because he was that, controlling. He applied for full custody (no, I kid you not). Our children were 3 and 6 st the time. Courts decided to go with exactly 50/50 split to 'make it fair'. Do I think that decision was in the best intereats of the children? No. Their father's primary aim was to get at me and boy, did he succeed. Almost five years on and I'd like to say it's easier. But the reality is I don't feel like a mother. I am 11 days again without my children. The devastating impact the decision the courts made has hurt me beyond measure. I wish I'd have stayed until he physically hit me and things would have been so much better in the long run. A sad state of affairs.

I'm all for parents having shared custody but as children get older, they usually have a social life in the same area as one parent and that takes precedence. It's OK if both parents live near eachother.

Ultimately it is up to the child to choose.

Ella

I hear your pain. Xx
But does it work for the children? Are they happy and are their needs met in both homes.? Even if he hit you the out come may well have been the same. He needs to failing the children for the courts to consider it! X

I do feel that's important Rebecca we live a 5 minute walk from each other for that reason. For now it makes school play dates and birthday parties easy and if tjey want to see eitherf of us for any reason it's easy to facilitate. As they get older it will help with their own social lives, so it doesn't cause one parent to be forgotten.

These kind of posts anger me. The responses are always full of mothers saying the fathers should not get 50/50. Why the hell not?! Is the child not 50% the dads?!
I get if there is abuse or the dad is a waster, but surely an absentee father isn't going to be fighting for access in the first place so isn't a valid argument?

I am a stepmum. Currently we have SS 2nights/3 days every week. Initially it was every weekend from 5pm Friday - 5pm Sunday when SS was 3.5-6. We were the ones baffled that the child mum didn't want any weekend time with her son but we happily went with her arrangement here.

Eventually DH reassessed this with ex as we felt that SS should get weekend time with his mum to do 'fun' stuff and not just the routine school pick up, dinner, home work & bed through the week and so both parents now have one day and night at the weekend with him.
Unless there is an event or a reason for a change then the days are always the same so he knows exactly where he is and on what day.

And also bollocks to any attitudes of a child should not have 2 homes. They adjust and adapt and it makes them no worse off as long as they have a structure and routine to how their weeks are made up!

With the OP's son saying he 'doesn't know' why he doesn't want to go to his dads, this is likely just an age related phase. SS went through a phase where every answer to every question was just I don't know.

Where I live (not UK) 50:50 is the norm. I guess you go into having kids knowing this is the likely outcome if a relationship breaks down and kids see their friends doing week about too so don’t question it. It doesn’t work for all children but I know lots who do thrive on it. And the dads here do seem to be more hands on?

unicornchaser - there are lots of reasons a NRP would ask for 50/50
He may genuinely want to care and parent the children
or
He may feel entitled to have the children but have no genuine desire or know-how to parent
He may wish to not pay or pay as little as possible CM, or they fear the asset split will be more favorable to the RP if the children are there most of the time
Control or simply an attitude of revenge towards the other parent, yes hurting the other parent through the kids is fairly common side effect of divorce

50-50 default care gives the benefit of the doubt to the NRP and doesn't consider the child's best interest
It makes a lot more sense to look at how a parent behaved prior to breakup as it is a strong indication of how the relationship with the children will continue.
Why should an absentee father, one who never cared much for the kids be suddenly considered a competent parent? It makes no sense. If he demonstrated years of neglect why would they suddenly become good parents

In addition, children don't just get used to it. Perhaps the biggest convenience misconception is that "children are resilient". They adjust and adapt but they suffer sooo much, many are left with life long scars and some never adjust. Some have self esteem problems, depression, anxiety. This conception is there to put the divorcing parents minds at ease but it doesn't do justice to the children.

I would love to be in a situation where 50/50 would work for the kids, it would allow me to expand my career a lot faster, it would benefit me financially. In my dreams my ex would be a caring parent who would be proud of the kids and happy to do things for them, my kids would feel safe and loved and valued in both houses. It is not the case though. But he does ask for 50/50 and has threatened me to go for full custody.

If 50/50 was the norm I fear my kids would be severely damaged emotionally, their education would suffer and, given the considerable differences between the two households and how they function, they would not feel they have two homes, but two different bed stays.

In the future, if the children will feel at ease with the dad and how he treats them, if their relationship will become one of care and mutual respect, I will happily consider a 50/50. But I don't hold my breath for it.

Those of you who can never fathom the situation where you would have to seriously consider the safety and happiness of your children because it is a given are really fortunate. Just don't assume it is a universal rule. Plenty parents are not as lucky and what they don't agree with the 50/50 it is because they put the well being of their children first.

Unless there is abuse or neglect, and a will to parent:

It should be 50/50.

Otherwise don't leave the relationship or try harder to make it work.

Seems like too much self justification going on in these threads.

When a parent goes for full custody (residency order) i am presuming you mean they live with one parent and see the other parent?? I think it just means one parent has the childreb more than 50%?

Those are really good points @somuchbetter. I think 50/50 is the ideal but that is only if that has been the case up to the separation/divorce.

I think there can be some playacting around this issue for the very reasons you mention. Lets assume that the NRP would have had every chance to display full involvement in their childrens life up to the point of separation but hasnt availed of it, why the scramble to ensure their rights after it?

I too would have concerns about their needs being met in a 50/50 arrangement. Basic stuff like education, social life, hygiene etc. I know they need a full relationship with him and to feel loved and supported in both homes but am not prepared to subject them to some weird experiment to meet his feelings of entitlement even though 50/50 would benefit my working life. They have enough going on for them with this shit happening anyway. Why shouldnt I consider them? Thats what I have always done but he doesnt understand that outlook...

Allalittlebitshit2019 - no, full custody (the term no longer exists legally speaking) involves the children spending all the time with one parent and not the other.
Ss770640 - And that is because? But perhaps you see no justification better than self justification, who knows. As for abuse and neglect , know that only severe cases are taken into consideration, nobody in the system even blinks at emotional abuse (despite of what the law says it is the sad reality). They actually have thresholds for intervention.

So much better.
Thank you i was getting confused. I know they didn't use the term any more, but thought residency order was used instead.
Yes only server abuse is considered i experienced this.