50/50 residence

[lucyintheskywithdinos]

Hello!

I've been a lone parent since the start of November last year, but our circumstances are about to change and exH is going to be able to do 50:50 residence. It is perfect for me as our children are home educated, so this allows me to work part time (hurrah!) once I've finished college next July.

My work will be more flexible than his, so in practice, I'll have them a bit more than 50% of the time. I'm really just saying hello, and asking for other people's experiences of 50:50. He lives close by and the littlest is used to being with him overnight so I'm not worried about it really...slightly wondering what to do with all of the extra time though!

Hello! Our situation is very like yours, I have slightly more than 50% too. My view is that the time with my 2 dd is so precious, I do no housework and just focus on them. The first night without them is lovely. Long, quiet baths. A glass of wine, TV on. But it does get painful after the second night and I do get very lonely very regularly. It's a curse and a blessing. I hope it all works out well for you all though!

Hi, I have done 50:50 parenting for 3.5 years now, since splitting up with my ex. It does get quite lonely sometimes and I do resent it when I have a long period without my DD, but we have worked it so that during the week we have her every other night, then Fri-Sun on/off so it's never very long without her. It takes some getting used to, and we have adjusted it over the years, and will continue to do so, to make sure it's right for her (& us). Obviously it helps if you are on good terms with your ex. As for all the extra time, I have a fairly good social life and appreciate being able to go to the cinema, out for meals with friends etc and not have to worry about the school run before work the next morning. It's not what I would have chosen for my life but it has its advantages. Good luck with it!

I am going to go against the grain here. I do think that 50/50 might be a good option for parents but not exactly so for the children. It works well with toddlers and young children but I have seen it backfire big time with older children and teenagers.

I have heard of a family managing the 50/50 beautifully into the teen years. But the children were based in the house and the parents moved in and out of it in a weekly basis (if you think you can't/won't do that yourselves as adults, don't impose it on the children).

How old are your DDs? Are they old enough to have their opinion on the set up taken in to consideration?
I'm asking because I was advised against 50:50 as not being in the best interests of my child. The official line is that it's no longer what's "fair" to the parents, but what's best for the child.
Would you want to be changing houses every few days?

That's very interesting, Me, the idea of the children staying put and the adults moving in and out. Did the parents have separate homes? I can't imagine they would be able to do this on a low income if they had three homes to maintain?

And can I ask who advised you against the 50:50 arrangement, Goodbye? I never consulted anyone when my husband left, we just both assumed - correctly - that we would agree to shared parenting. As our DD was 14 months old at the time there was no question of asking her opinion, but I do believe that when she is older the arrangement will have to be adapted to suit her needs, not ours, if she doesn't want to split her time with us equally.

It is not possible in a low income as you will need three houses, but I would say that it is not about affirdability, but about what is best for the children. The arguments I have seen against the 50/50 are all about the idea that children haveain base where thry have most stuff they need fot school, close to friends, etc.

I agree eith this from my experience of commuting. I hated having to pack my things and move from one place to the other one in a regular basis as I was not setting roots at either place. While I have been perfectly ok with having a weekday main home and another one to retreat to in the weekends.

Shared residence is a legal term and you can have it in any percentage of shared contact, it doesn't have to be 50/50. Legally speaking I can't see much difference between 'shared residence' and 'sole residence and contact time' (apart of being able to suggest who my child should go to if I died, but even that would be easily challenged by a willing and able ex. Anyhow, these terms are going to disappear in yhe near future so they might not be relevant to you.

There is a book I found really helpful whis us called Putting Children First by Karen Goodall. Very balanced and quite sn eye opner in terms if finding ways to ensure you can co parent together in a way that works for the children, the parents and any future blended families.

Again, but without the typos:

It is not possible in a low income as you will need three houses, but I would say that it is not about affirdability, but about what is best for the children. The arguments I have seen against the 50/50 are all based on idea that children meed a main base where they have most of the stuff they need for school, close to friends, etc.

I agree with this from my experience of commuting. I hated having to pack my things and move from one place to the other one in a regular basis as I was not setting roots at either place. While I have been perfectly ok with having a weekday main home and another one to retreat to in the weekends.

Shared residence is a legal term and you can have it in any percentage of shared contact, it doesn't have to be 50/50. Legally speaking I can't see much difference between 'shared residence' and 'sole residence and contact time' (apart of being able to suggest who my child should go to if I died, but even that would be easily challenged by a willing and able ex).

Anyhow, these terms are going to disappear in the near future so they might not be relevant to you.

There is a book I found really helpful called Putting Children First by Karen Goodall. Very balanced and quite an eye opner in terms of finding ways to ensure you can co parent together in a way that works for the children, the parents and any future blended families.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with consulting other people, read a lot of books, talked to professionals and even sought opinion of people who grew up in two households as children. It certainly opened my eyes to any potential problems as well as providing is with fantastic advice on how to make the things work better.

Some info on shared care can be found here.

www.sharedparenting.org.uk/shared-residence

The Benefits of Shared Residence and Shared Parenting

Removes the need for a child to choose between the parents
Allows both parents to love and nurture the child in much the same way as they did prior to parental separation and therefore promotes the continuation of family life
The child does not feel rejected by the non-resident parent and does not blame himself
Confirms to the child that he still has two parents who love and wish to care for him
The child derives emotional and psychological security from having two fully engaged parents
The child is no longer brought up to believe that the resident parent is the real, better or main parent and that the non-resident parent is a lesser parent or to be rejected
Re-affirms the responsibility of each parent to care and provide for the child
Sends a clear message to the resident parent, schools, doctors, CAFCASS and the courts that both parents are equal and that all decisions relating to the child should be based on this principle
The child is more likely to grow up in a well-adjusted manner
Reduces parental hostility as it requires both parents to negotiate and make joint decisions
Prevents the breach of court orders and therefore the need to continually return to court

They seem all very nice and good reasons, for the parents.

Looks pretty good for the child too.

The children I know (about 6 families) that have shared residency/care with their parents are well rounded and happy beings. It helps that their parents are local to each other.

The couple of families that have teens that I am friends with seem to find it a very worthwhile and supportive set up.

It is a shame that more people do not do shared parenting/residency in this country. I am sure that there would be more happy children around and a more positive attitude towards fathers of divorced or separated families. Sadly though I think that societies expectations of fathers in these situations do not help, it is far too easy for fathers to walk away or do the minimum, society should be pushing them to step up and take more responsibility in sharing child rearing.

I knew one separated couple where the father wanted to do 50/50, his child wanted it too, but even though he had his child for the evening the mother wouldn't let the child stay the night as she was worried that she would loose the child's maintainance (father had child for 2/3 nights a week, one more night would push it to 50/50). The mother worked p/t, claimed all the benefits she could as well as father paying child care for her on her contact days. She certainly was not considering her child's best interest at all.

it assumes two equally capable parents though who are willing to work together, who were equally involved in a child's life before the split. parents living close enough for it to work...

If she was working part time (most times, a paren in need that works part time does that because there are no jobs available, because jobs available may not allow her to pick up/drop children to breakfast/after school clubs, etc). I'd she could claim all the benefits she could, i think she is in a position where not being able to get those benefits will mean she will not be able to keep a roof over the head of her child to enable his child to stay with her half of the time.

Because believe me, if you are getting benefits, it is because your income places you below the poverty line (otherwise you won't get anything but child benefit which is a few pence over £20 a week). I don't know if 50/50 will affect tax credits but 51/49 will do which means she cannot get tax credits and in certain cases that might mean that the mum needs to leave her house, move to a beds it/shared house/hostel which may not be in interest of the children?

Me I'm not sure I can piece your latest post together properly, you say in one post that it shouldn't be about affordability, but the needs of the children, but then you talk about the need for a child to stay with the mother for financial reasons? But WRT your objection to 50/50 because of your own experience of commuting, I have to say it isn't really the same, is it? IME children really value the continued relationship with both parents, and are much less bothered by 'having a base' than the adults appear to think. As Susan says, I've only seen it work with parents who live close together, though, so the argument about friends etc may apply if one parent moves away.

In any case, the OP very specifically said that 50/50 was perfect for her and was asking for other people's experiences of 50/50 and what to do with the extra time. I'm not sure how helpful it is to imply that she is thinking about herself and not her kids, which doesn't seem to be the case at all and is a bit bloody rude, TBF.

DB and his ex do 50:50 and seems to work out well. Gives each one the flexibility to do stuff on weekends off without having babysitters. They are also very flexible about changing days/weekends if something comes up.

We do 4 nights/5 days with me and 3 nights/2 days with XH.

It works out ok, we live in the same street (school is also on this street) so that helps.

Financially, I get the child benefit, meaning I also get the tax credits etc, so I buy all the clothes, school dinners, parties etc, and do all the appointments. I also have them nearly all weekend (he takes them at tea time on the Sunday) so I actually have them with me a lot more.

The kids do definitely see themselves as having two homes, and they seem happy with the arrangement, and it lets me and XH work the odd hours that we do.

It's not ideal, but it seems to be the best option for us.

I am also scratching head with regards to me

The woman in my example was sitting with a group (end of year drinks) boasting how she controls her exp's time with their child by not letting him have her as she likes the rather large and way above csa recommendations for maintainance money!!!

She is not a friend of mine, luckly, but it goes to show how money can motivate someone to not always do best thing for her dd.

Anyway I can really see the benifits of 50/50 with regards to the child.

Children do better with both father and mother's imput and time.

Look, I did it for many years. I wouldn't recommend it. In theory, great. When you first split up and it's all amicable, yes. But things change, over The years. You both meet new partners. One of you wants to move. You never feel free from the other person. Homework, clothes, holidays... In my experience, with hindsight, I would have left and taken our son, and he could have had him at weekends in the normal way. But then my ex was basically a control freak so what I do know, bad example probably.

Very child focused mooth

I've done 50/50 successfully for over 6 years now. It's been successful whether exH & I get on or not because we are both able to put our feelings about eachother aside so the children aren't impacted.

Children do better with both father and mother's imput and time.

Well, er... yes, of course they do. I agree with Me that 50 50 - in my opinion - is more about the parents and their need to feel as though neither parent is getting more than the other, than the children. I am biased, I have just had my final hearing in court fighting tooth and nail against my husband's application for precisely that.

Thankfully the judge agreed with me, and stated in her judgement that in her belief splitting time equally between parents is NOT a requisite in any way for both parents managing to create a sense of total involvement in the children's lives. I have no desire to alienate my ex in any way from my children's lives, but neither do I want them spending lots of time unnecessarily in childcare, and being moved backwards and forwards more than is necessary, just to facilitate my ex's sense of fairness and justice.

My ex's barrister made a big thing about how great it would be for them to have two equal homes, two sets of friends etc. I find it shocking that anyone would have the lack of sensitivity to think that 'sets of friends' is something that should be acquired in the same way that handbags or other possessions. How can two sets of part-time friends be seen as in any way superior to one set of full-time, deep friends, who know you are always around and part of the fabric of each other's lives? Obviously the friends issue is just one factor. One barrister I know on MN said she often tells parents who are wanting 50 50 split of the children's time that perhaps the parents should try it out for size first - as mentioned in a previous post on this thread.

I can see that if you start it out when the children are young that many of the presenting issues wouldn't be relevant for a few years. By which time the system that has been set up and it would be hard for the child to know any different or for anybody to say one way or another.

And Theoldhag - having concerns about 50 50 residency does not put someone even remotely in the same ball park as one who is controlling with the children and uses them as pawns in a game.

Thanks for the sarcasm, nomoretether, I speak from 11 years experience, the 50/50 residency was of no benefit to my son. It was about his father 'getting his fair share' and me trying to be fair. Great that it works for you, Long May it continue, but not everyone is the same.

Hi lucy I've been doing 50/50 with my kids for years. I work full-time, so the extra time I have is basically a few evenings a week, one or two weekend nights and a day or half-day on the weekend. With that time I see friends, do housework, spend time with my OH, read, shop, do my hobbies and I have done some courses. TBH, it's not that different to what I'd be doing if my ex and I were still together apart.

I'm asking because I was advised against 50:50 as not being in the best interests of my child. The official line is that it's no longer what's "fair" to the parents, but what's best for the child.
It's always supposed to be about what is in the best interests of the children and the received wisdom in the UK courts is to stick to the traditional and old arrangement of children living in one house with visiting every alternate weekend. I find it really alarming that the "normal" set-up is not subject to the same skepticism and challenge and rigour in defending itself that shared parenting. I am sure that for many families the traditional model does work, but it is far from clear that it's universally better for all children in all families. The courts and social services etc, who hold the view that it's "not a good idea" only deal with a small minority of child contact arrangements, the ones that can't be worked out amicably by the parents, so it's unsurprising that they hold a cautious and conservative view.

Would you want to be changing houses every few days?
If I was a child and the alternative was having to be separated from one half of my whole world for two weeks, then yes. That's certainly my children's view. This horror that adults have about the idea doesn't necessarily reflect the way children experience it. But it does require that we are well-organised and that we ensure they experience as little disruption and as much flexibility and understanding as possible.

To my kids, they're not "changing houses", they're just going home.

Whenever the topic of shared parenting comes up, people raise their arms in horror and inevitably someone will talk about living out of a suitcase or being shuttled "back and forth" and I despair because the none of that stuff happens (in our family) and it just seems the whole child contact issue is so polarised with people in these two very divided camps with no room for discussing common ground or learning from the other

teapot The two sets of friends argument made by your ex's barrister seems like a strange thing to argue in favour of 50/50, however I do think it's quite usual for all children to develop different groups of friends especially as they get older. My kids have friends from school, friends from their activities, friends they know from when they stay at grandparents, friends they were at nursery with and so on. My ex and I live close enough to each other that it makes no difference to which friends of theirs they see and when.

Good post fox. I agree with a lot of what you say.

However, If I was a child and the alternative was having to be separated from one half of my whole world for two weeks, then yes.

Why is this seen as being the alternative to 50:50? In my case my ex will be having midweek contact (at the moment not staying because the children are too young to be travelling at the time he could collect them after work), having Skype/phone contact whenever he wants it, and as much extra contact as can be made to fit in (eg. on my weekends I am happy for him to see them if we don't have any plans). There's a world of difference between thinking that children's time needs to be split 50 50 in order to have a meaningful relationship (it doesn't) and thinking it's sufficient to see the other parent for 2 days out of 14.

I should also add that I am biased - my younger brother had 50 50 care when he was a child after my parents separated. When I spoke to him about it last week, in advance of my hearing, he started crying at the memory of it. This is twenty five years later. Although I knew he hated it at the time, I never saw him express any feelings about it as an adult until relatively recently, when he now feels able to talk openly about the (as he sees it, devastating) effect on his life.

Now I'm pretty sure that he had a bad time with it, and that lots of children don't and in fact thrive with it. But as you can imagine it's left something of a mark with me!