My DH and I are together still, but it is not going great, to say the least.
I work FT, he looks after DS (18m) on a Monday and picks up DD (3) from nursery on Mon, Tue and Wed, on the first two days the pick up is at 3 on Wed at 11.30. On Tue, Wed, Thurs, Fri DS goes to a CM and on Thurs Fri my DD goes to the same childminder.
He quit his job just over a year ago because he wanted to spend more time with the children, he now works flexibly and from home. When the children are ill, he is usually the one who stays home.
This is what we agreed and this is what he wanted.
Now a year in he realises that looking after children is hard work and is, I think, happy to spend more time with them, but also finds it hard work. I am sure every parent with kids these ages can agree to this.
I am now wondering, if we were to get to a divorce, which I hope doesn't happen, would this mean he would get 'custody' or residence, or whatever it is called? I would awful if that happened and it would just be based on the fact that I earn more and therefore it made sense for me to carry on working and the fact that he wanted a life style change. In Sept I went back to work after mat leave and told him I wanted to go down to four days, but he wasn't keen, saying we would lose too much money. If the kids were to live with me I would go down to four days, perhaps hire an aupair (DD is going to school in Sept) or find some good childcare arrangement.
What do you think? Would a judge give me residence over my husband? Arguably he has been the primary carer since September … Or would the mother still have an edge simply because she is the mum and the kids still so young?