I think my son's dad is deliberately taking him more to avoid paying out in a financial settlement

[Namechange596]

Call me cynical, but my son's dad has started taking him a lot more since he received the divorce petition. I think it has dawned on him that I will require a financial settlement and he is now taking our son on more overnights.
I suspect this is to enable him to pay less if it's 50/50 custody, if it went to Court etc.
Has anyone's ex ever done this? I don't like the idea of him doing this because of financial reasons, like he's trying to thwart me.

I hope so too. And agree, if it’s 50/50 that’s across the board on everything.

@BCCGoAway you are deliberately misquoting me. I have commented about situations with hopeless men and you have defended the men.
I hope OPs ex is genuine. Although she suspects he is not and is the one who actually knows him.

We very rarely see men complaining that when children are with their ex she neglects them. Or threads from boyfriends complaining they are doing most of the care for their girlfriends children. Yet we commonly see threads the other way round.

I have not defended any man other than the OP’s ex and even then only in terms of we don’t know he is hopeless/money grubbing/no interest in the kids, it’s not unusual for men to actually want to parent 50/50 and it’s right to give him a chance to prove himself.

Have you seen how men get treated on MN? Do you not know that 99% of posters are women? So of course it’s rare as hens teeth.

@alloutofluck

I mean look how you’re riding my ass about me trying to simply give a father a chance to parent 50/50 and I’m a woman! You know as well as I do that a man posting any such thread would have his ass handed to him and chased off. They know it too. Men very rarely post on MN. There are even threads the MN has let run discussing and debating a ban on letting men use the site.

To make it fairer, parents who request to have their children, but don't follow through without a valid reason, they should get a fine. It hurts the children so much, waiting for their parent then the parent cancels for a frivolous reason last minute.

The fine should be similar to the benefit sanctions. First time you get sanctioned it will last four weeks and it increases in severity if you get more sanction in the year I think.

@BCCGoAway there are plenty of men regularly posting here.

In terms of gendered divisions of labour, particularly in respect of emotional and management tasks that combine to form mental load, this is unlikely to be split 50:50, even if commitments in respect of child locatin are actually honoured.

Well it’s certainly going to be nearer than if the contact was less. You can’t object on the basis it’s still not half, that’s cutting your nose off to spite your face - surely?

Yes 1% of 30,000 registered members is “plenty”.

bccg you’re right, there often is hippocrisy and men are often given a tougher time on Mumsnet than women. There was one recently where a woman had been unfaithful and was given much more support than a man would have been.

But… we also say that past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour and I think op is aware enough of her past husband’s behaviour for us to believe her that he is only spending time with the dc to avoid giving her money.

Even OP herself only suspects that may be the case. So if you do believe her, then you would also believe that her ex is only under suspicion.

If you suspect something, don’t you normally give the person an opportunity to either confirm your suspicions or pleasantly surprise you? Many men are shit husbands, but decent fathers so it’s not unthinkable.

It would be unfair to refuse something that could be in your and your DC’s best interests on the basis of suspicion he’s doing it for monetary reasons alone (the only exception to this principle would be for cases of suspected abuse)

So, I do believe OP and I still think trying 50/50 is a better option than rejecting it out of hand.

This sort of inequality, in a multitude of ways in multiple areas of life, is exactly what constitutes women's oppression, so no, don't be surprised when we don't, go, 'Oh wow! A bit less unfair! Of course we'll settle for that!'.

No one’s saying settle for it, just it’s odd to push for an arrangement that has more inequality rather than agree to an offer that has less inequality. Every journey begins with a single step, no? So why refuse to take the first step forward and stay put?

Exactly - otherwise the only outcome is even further away from what you’re wanting to achieve. If OP says no, you can’t have them 50:50 because it’s still not equal the net result is it will be further from 50:50 not closer.

That's because this is MumsNet and there are very few men on here. Men's forums do exist and they have their own sexist tropes too.

Go into OLD and you will see all the men complaining about mums not “allowing them to see their children” but honestly, a dad can be a drug addict, a rapist or a criminal and the court won’t block contact, a normal guy who do not see his children is normally one that is not bothered.

If you want to see how bothered many men are about their previous relationship go into the stepparents thread where you could appreciate that these guys are to busy living their lives while it is the stepmums who get all the responsibility of caring for the children.

Obviously, there are some ocassions when a 50/50 split works beautifully, but for that to work you need to have TWO parents who who have been very involved from birth and are prepared to always put the needs of the children before their own.

Leopards do not change their spots, if a parent was not that committed in the past, it is not going to become a hands on parent just for getting a 50/50 split of the time. They will soon get fed up of the responsibility and work and start dumping the children with family, partners and friends.

@ForTheSakeOfThePenguin Sorry but what you have written is just a sexist rant that ignores a lot of the structural inequalities that prevents both parties sharing care 50/50 before divorce.

In my household, my ex-wife point blank refused to do any kind of paid work. She wouldn't do so much as a Saturday morning job to push our earnings up enough to get a mortgage and the only way we were eventually able to buy a house was by me giving up a satisfying career with a short commute in order to get something better paid in London. As a result, I had significantly less time with the children when we were married, in order to give them a stable home. My ex-wife did not step up at all and certainly didn't perform the role of a SAHP beyond glancing up from her phone occasionally to check the children were still alive or chucking some microwaved garbage in front of them for dinner. I often found myself getting home at 8pm from a long commute and having to spend hours cleaning and tidying.

When divorce came, the sexists came out of the woodwork demanding that I continued to do this horrible job with a horrible commute not for my benefit or that of the children but in order to provide for the free loader that I was divorcing. The usual sexist tropes about how she had given up a career and contributed equally were trumpeted around by people more interested in statistics than what had actually happened. The system tried to turn me into a bedsit dwelling money robot with next to no contact with the children whilst my ex-wife put her feet up as they got older. I had to fight hard for a fair amount of contact and to not have to pay her any spousal maintenance.

So whenever I see people talk about 50/50 and try and assess people that they don't know based on dubious anecdotes and statistics I feel I should speak up about it. At the very least, it should not automatically be assumed that the SAHP has done a good job.

If you are attempting to argue, that on the basis of your personal marital experience (which we only have your side of), that multiple sources of household data, showing the same pattern of inequality in GB households, over decades, are wrong, then you should jog on.

If you are arguing that dubious statistics should be applied rather than considering each case on it's methods, then you should jog on. I am disgusted and appalled that you would allow for injustice in individual cases on the grounds of some statistics that might not apply.

In fact, I'd go further. I think you are a dangerous idiot for what you espouse.

I am not espousing anything other than the fact there is a sizeable and robust evidence base documenting, at population level, significant household inequalities by sex.

Interesting that you would find that dangerous.

@BetterFuture1985 i think a lot more people ignore the dynamics you have described than people will admit. People forget that the non resident parent can only take more contact time etc if the resident parent is prepared to take the burden of supporting themselves financially(or to a great extent). This post illustrates perfectly how people don’t always aspire to that.

The dynamic set during the marriage of the division of childcare vs the financial burden is often maintained. You can’t have the maintenance money, keep the big family home and then expect your ex to be able to house and look after the kids half the time.

Look Mate, I've just told you what the evidence base says.

No idea why you are indulging in personal attacks.