Really struggling with 50/50 custody, losing my baby

[MissingMama]

I split with stbxh at the start of the year. We have been sharing custody 50/50 of our kids, 5 and 1. It’s generally working ok, the kids do seem to of adjusted. It’s better with the 5 year old, he understands more and can vocalise how he feels. He still seems very close to me. It’s not ideal, but it’s ok.

My 1 year old (well, 22 month old) is just breaking my heart. Some weeks I only have him in the evenings after he’s spent the day with his childminder, it works out as like 12 hours over that week really. He loves it at her house and is so attached to her, he cries and doesn’t want to come to me when I pick him up. I can never replicate the bond they have as I just can’t spend as much time with him.

He is often upset to come to me, he will engage with me and be happy and smiley and give kisses etc after a bit of time to soften but I just don’t feel like I’ve got the bond with him that I did, or that she has. I feel like I’m losing my baby.

This isn’t what I’d have chosen for them, I just feel heartbroken. I’ve asked my ex about more custody in my favour and he said he’d got to court if I tried that. I just feel so sad. What can I do?

Confirmation bias.

you’re excluding the species where both parents play an active role in parenting, and mum goes out to hunt etc as much as dad.

in the species you cite where dad isn’t really involved initially, dads don’t “build a bond” later. The males aren’t involved at all.

somone upthread asked why dads find it easier to walk away from children. Perhaps it’s because they aren’t allowed to bond in the same way. Using the examples from the animal kingdom above if the male isn’t involved in the initial weeks/months, he then doesn’t step up to build a bond later.

In many cultures it’s not unusual for grandparents to raise the child. Many mums work. There are many babies “separated” from mum for many reasons.

What made up nonsense. Quote a reliable source for that.

It's also ignoring the fact that humans are also incredibly different too.

We work for a living
We use washing machines and cookers
Many send their children to various childcare
We don't sometimes eat our young

etc etc.

But separated so much so young?

But biology hasn't changed. It's hugely distressing for both mother and baby to be separated to the extent that the OP and her baby have been, at the baby's age.

It is a biological truth. Same reason the mother and baby have skin-to-skin contact right after birth, not the father and baby. The maternal bond is the more important one while the child is very young, and that's why natal wards promote it. Milk can be letdown merely by a baby's cry. And the milk won't come in or let down if the mother is stressed. The biological bond between a mother and her young is far, far greater than the paternal bond while the child is very small.

OP's child doesn't sound hugely distressed to me.

So you are completely against surrogacy then?

I'm sire you wouldn't have liked to spend that much time away from your mother from the age of about twelve months.

Lots of children do when mom goes back to work 🤷‍♀️

I'm sure I would've been just fine, just like many other children are who have similar situations or have a mum who travels for work etc.

We also don't even know how much time it is exactly.

OP I hope you come back and post the arrangement you have with your ex as then you will get some useful advice. Does he have the DC every weekend?

If so, then this could be challenged in court as courts recognise that both parents deserve to have quality time with their kids.

I haven't thought much about surrogacy. In the UK, a surrogate can turn around and keep the baby, even if it wasn't her egg. I'm guessing that's because the law recognises the importance of the maternal bond. Surrogacy agreements aren't legally binding, and the birthing mother is considered to be the parent. The intended parents then need to apply for a parental order.

I'm not against surrogacy, but it seems a precarious road to go down with little to no protection for the intended parents.

It IS terrible for any mother and baby to be torn apart soon after birth.

Have you read about attachment? A secure attachment is vital for a child's early years, and that's usually at risk if the child is shunted between homes so very young.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285521278_Shared_Physical_Custody_Summary_of_40_Studies_on_Outcomes_for_Children

I’ve fallen down a bit of a rabbit hole after reading this thread, thanks to my insomnia. The above article includes a list of references, some of these are v interesting.

I'm not the poster you asked but I am against surrogacy.

This isn't about being out at work. This is about a child not living with his mother half the time at a really, really young and tender age.

Well, the thread title says 50-50. And this isn't about being at work. This is about a REALLY young child being shunted between two homes and the maternal bond being interrupted because of the extra time taken away from the mum and baby.

A child can have a secure attachment with multiple caregivers, it doesn't have to be just one primary caregiver.

Which can mean anything that adds up to 50-50. It can be done in multiple ways.

I completely agree. I think this new thing of children being constantly shunted between two homes is dreadful. I don't understand why the dad can't have frequent visitation during the week - like coming over to have dinner and do homework, or take them to activities and out for dinner, or weekday evening cinema trips, say, or other quality time - and have them to stay every other weekend, plus half the holidays. Making kids constantly trudge between houses, always packing up, is madness. I bet this arrangement will fall out of fashion and people will be amazed about it in 2-3 decades.

Sorry but 50:50 is a crock of shite that’s aimed primarily at keeping the parents happy.

Imagine having to constantly live your life between two places. Shuttling back and forth every few days or week or whatever. That’s crap. Kids need a security, stability and predictability. Especially at 2 and 5 ffs.

It's generally accepted that very young children need a main secure attachment and that that is usually the maternal bond. They might have other attachments on top, yes, but the bedrock of their lives age 0-3 should be their mothers. It's wicked to disrupt that bond the way the OP's bond is being interrupted. The child is clearly suffering, as demonstrated by the way he doesn't want to go back to her.

I cant believe so many think 50/50 is best, a one year old shouldn’t be away this much only home with mum for hours a week. Far too young for 50/50

The child isn't clearly suffering at all. It can be normal for some children to cry on pick up and they often still have both parents living in the same house.