What is 'normal' access for the ex after a split with small kids?

[4some]

I am proposing the below for our 4 small kids (6, 4, 2 and 11 months). DH wants more (he wants 13 days a month) with a weekend 'off' every month. I said that's too much/too bitty. His plan would see them back and forth for odd nights here and there during school week which is my main concern.

I propose:

Week 1 Fri, Sat nigths with dad
Week 2 Sat, Sun nights with dad
Week 3 Fri, Sat nights with dad
Week 4 Sat Sun nights with dad.

If it went to court would they think my proposal is fair, or his bitty proposal with him getting a weekend off every month?

It is really difficult to work out OP, but my imo you need to think long term also.
At the moment, he wants nearer to 50/50 custody than just the weekend thing. You say you won't be going back to work for at least 3 years, but the reality is, stuff does happen, circumstances change, and you may need/want to return sooner.

What if this happens and he then refuses to have them more? What if he won't/can't rearrange his work patterns to help you with childcare?
I think it's great that you're going to mediation btw. You obviously want an arrangement that's best for your children.

Leeds I do disagree with you. They are of course also 4some's children. But they are no more her's, than his. A huge amount of children have to go to childcare while their parents work. That's his call to make if he gets the amount of custody he wants. You can't dictate to an ex when you're willing for them to have their children and under what circumstances you'll allow it (not that OP is doing that here). No more than they can dictate to you.

i would always look for one week on, one week off tbh. Gives children enough time to 'settle in' at each home, gives each parent equal time off, to work, play, whatever.
A day here and a day there seems so hard on the children, surely they need consistency and continuity?

i wouldnt like his proposal, as you could never really take them away for weekends

We did a 50:50 split week, with the handover on the weekend so we both had a bit of weekday and a bit of weekend, and no more than three days without them. I think it's easier with small children because they don't tend to have non parental sponsored social lives.

3 days a month is only a quarter of the children's time, so I struggle to see why that should be thought too much really. The OP's proposal of half the amount of time suggested by her dh is unlikely to work for him I would have thought, and the 'standard' every other weekend has always seemed pretty terrible to me, reflecting a time when fathers were seen as fairly periphery.

But of course it depends on personal circumstances, how involved the father actually is or will be, how close you live together, what childcare arrangements are possible and how flexibly your dh can work. I do think that regularity is important, with a bit of flexibility on top for when things crop up, and also that there shouldn't be too much of a gap when the children don't see either parent.

Chopping and changing on school nights will reek havoc with booking after school care/swimming lessons etc. So I think fixed weeknights, where he books AFC (again, leaving you with them looking after them can lead to him taking advantage with being late. And it's all about sharing the load )

Him having every weekend leaves you with all the drudge - every other would be fairer, or if he has them on Fridays when it's your weekend.

I don't think the alternate weekend proposal is due to courts only seeing fathers as 'peripheral' - rather it takes into account the huge practical difficulties of shunting children back and forth between two homes.

One American psychologist suggested that parents should leave the children in one home whilst they moved in and out on a week on week off basis. Unsurprisingly, not many parents have ever gone for that option because who wants to keep moving back and forth with suitcases?

If you want to get as close to 50/50 as humanly possible you really do have to live near to each other and the children's schools. Otherwise I think it can be very stressful, lots of moving around for children, forgetting/missing possessions etc, etc.

And of course, the older they get, the less interested they will be in regimented moving about and the more they will prioritise their social lives...

One American psychologist suggested that parents should leave the children in one home whilst they moved in and out on a week on week off basis. Unsurprisingly, not many parents have ever gone for that option because who wants to keep moving back and forth with suitcases?

And yet so many people suggest that the children do exactly that. My 13 year old brother was thrown into this set up, living alternate weeks at each parent's place - it destroyed his confidence. His friends never knew when he was at home and therefore 'available', and he felt like a constant go-between.

I've been perplexed by how to suggest what is best in my own situation - I was/am primary carer/SAHM; H works full-time and long hours. He is gunning for 50:50 contact and residence of our 3 yr old twins. Although I struggle with thinking that the EOW-and-once-during-the-week framework doesn't seem often enough, I also feel very strongly that children should feel as though they have one proper home and a bed which they sleep in most nights. We are also less than amicable and the thought of having to live in very close proximity for the next 15 years with necessarily frequent and extensive communication brings me out in hives.

4some - I think you'd both really benefit from a mediation session to discuss this issue.

Sadly I think quite a few of the parents I represent do not really seem to think of the impact of what they want on the children. Fathers in particular seem keen on turning up with spreadsheets in lots of different colours to show how they could 'achieve' 50% of the children's times.

Its often really, really difficult once you have two different households, to find a solution that makes both parents feel validated but also causes least stress to children. Of course, they usually want to see lots of both parents but I think they also do need a base and not too much shuttling back and forth.

I agree that mediation, if you can face it, is a much better first option than court.

I think for such small children, both of your proposals are ludicrous. Different days/number of nights every week ? The poor kids won't know if they are coming or going. How much of what your Ex is proposing relates to how much maintenance he will be allowed to reduce?
And in either of your proposals, the kids will be with him for far too much weekend time. If you are going to be doing the bulk of the day to day parenting, then you need weekends for your kids to enjoy having time with you when are not stressing about school runs and clean uniforms. It also means that with regards activities, parties etc there is the potential for lots of confusion.

I think mediation is the only way forward, The 'normal' minimum contact would start at 1 midweek overnight stay and every other weekend with the NRP. Most families I know then have a second midweek night with NRP on the weeks when they are not there on a weekend.

Thanks everyone some really interesting and varied feedback. I appreciate it. Will update the thread after mediation and when theory becomes practice.

It isn't about what works for the two of you.

It's what works for the children - their attendance at school, how they will be cared for, their routine, stability and security.

That's what the mediator will encourage you both to think about.

Both proposals sound incredibly complicated from the childrens' point of view.

Hi there,
My STBXH and I live close together,so I drop the children at their daddy's every school morning on my way to work, and he does the morning school run. He then calls round every weeknight to either put them to bed or play with them before bed (alternate nights) and then he has them overnight from lunchtime on Sat to after lunch on Sunday. The children are young so it works v well as they see their daddy everyday and he is involved in their everyday routines, and the children always know that Saturday night is sleepover at daddy's night! :-) We are on good terms so it is an easy arrangement for us. Good luck!

Spero I wasn't suggesting that courts see fathers as peripheral, more that it can be the prevailing societal attitude. I guess I take a slightly different view because I was the one in danger of seeing my children every now and then instead of every day as dh worked part time when we split up, so would have been considered the primary carer.

Luckily we managed to work things out amicably between us. Of course it wasn't great for the children to have two homes, but that's what happen when a family breaks up, there is no avoiding it unless one parent effectively walks out of their lives. I think we managed things for the children relatively well, they just had the two handovers a week and the routine didn't vary very much, we lived 10 mins walk from each other and school plus they had the same out of school carer at both homes.

I think you are trying to accommodate his needs not the children's

We do every other weekend and a week during the holidays but only when ds got old enough

It will be very hard for them leaving and returning the home try to limit it as much as possible

It means ds knows exactly what he is doing and they get into a routine
That is really important, he knows where his home is and he has football club etc at the weekend, if you don't have them at the weekend regularly you won't have that downtime with them and that's really important

We have done 50/50 since my DC was 3 year old. They are now at school and it still works really well for them. They are happy and well-adjusted to it.

Spero What are these 'huge practical difficulties'? I find, as a parent with 50/50, your use of the word 'shunting' to be insensitive and mildly offensive. My child is not, and never has been, shunted. Some people may have practical difficulties, although out of the 6 families I know (myself included) in my peer group who do 50/50, no-one has huge practical difficulties so I'm completely unfamiliar with them. Maybe you can tell me about the difficulties in our lives?

The pain EOW would have caused my child means I could never have considered it for a minute, even if I didn't have other reasons for deciding to do 50/50. The EOW setup is a throwback from the 70's and 80's. I am sure that maybe other families are different and maybe it doesn't adversely affect other children badly, but it would really have messed up mine.

^The sole custody model has, surprisingly, come under relatively little scrutiny in Canadian government reports: ?It is ironic,? writes Joan Kelly (1991), ?and of some interest, that we have subjected joint custody to a level and intensity of scrutiny that was never directed toward the traditional post-divorce arrangement (sole legal and physical custody to the mother and two weekends each month of visiting to the father). Developmental and relationship theory should have alerted the mental health field to the potential immediate and long-range consequences for the child of only seeing a parent four days each month. And yet until recently, there was no particular challenge to this traditional post-divorce parenting arrangement, despite growing evidence that such post-divorce relationships were not sufficiently nurturing or stabilizing for many children and parents. . . There is evidence that in our well-meaning efforts to save children in the immediate post-separation period from anxiety, confusion, and the normative divorce-engendered conflict, we have set the stage in the longer run for the more ominous symptoms of anger, depression, and a deep sense of loss by depriving the child of the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent.?

Herein lies the crux of current child custody and access policy debates. It has somehow come to be regarded as developmentally ?correct? to award sole custody to one parent, usually the mother, with twice-monthly weekend access ?visits? with the other parent, usually the father. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that such an arrangement disregards children?s physical, psychological and social needs for both parents in their lives.^ - Edward Kruk, Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of British Columbia, specializing in child and family policy. Excerpt taken from 'Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard.'

The point is, whatever your own views about the best arrangement for you, whether that is EOW/1/2 midweek, 50-50, it has to work for the child.

Two couples I know had "amicable" partings and did 50-50 with the (only) child spending every other week with each parent.

In both cases it didn't last long, both children decided they just didn't want the palaver any more, and wanted a home. In one case the change followed almost immediately after one parent's wedding.

No two circumstances are the same. There is no particular plan that works best apart from the plan that does work at that particular time in the child's life.

It's worth bearing in mind that no-one bats an eyelid at the notion that it is possible for a child to maintain a meaningful relationship with a parent who is absent through the week because of long working hours, or working away for long periods if the couple is still together. Why should it be any different when a couple part? You still have one mum and one dad.

Couples don't necessarily continue living in the same part of the country, let alone close. Some couples end up completely unable to communicate. Some children are more sensitive than others about the difficulty and disruption caused by not being able to consistently maintain friendships or attendance at clubs and activities. Sometimes new partners or "blended families" work, sometimes they don't. If you have two or more children across a large age range who feel differently about the arrangements, that can also present difficulties.

Whatever the situation, you need to put the needs of the children first and whatever arrangement you put in place, you need to accept it will evolve as the children get older.

At all times you have to think about what's best for them, not you, and consider their welfare and feelings whether that fits in with what you want or not.

Ok, you want examples of practical difficulties?

One father lived forty miles from child's school and wanted midweek overnight contact. The drive to school next morning would have taken nearly two hours.

Another parent could not or would not ever return school uniform after weekends. Other parent in despair as kept having to replace uniform and could not afford to do so.

One father refused to be flexible about 'his' time and would not take child to various activities even tough child showing great aptitude.

If it works for you that's fab. But for many families it doesn't work.

Sorry you don't like the word 'shunting'. But for many of my cases, it is sadly accurate. Children are treated like parcels. It's a great shame.

Ok, you want examples of practical difficulties?
Nope. I said 'Maybe you can tell me about the difficulties in our lives?' It was, of course, a rhetorical question What I was pointing out was that statement that 'rather it takes into account the huge practical difficulties of shunting children back and forth between two homes.' implies that a child having two homes always involves huge practical difficulties and shunting and that's patently untrue and offensive the vast majority of separated parents who just get on with it without problem. Huge practical problems are not an inherent part shared parenting (whether 50/50 or a different arrangement). Of course there are many situations where shared parenting is clearly not practical (like your example where the parents live 40 miles apart) or where one parent is being an arsehole (like in your next two examples, but actually they sound like people who would be difficult in any contact arrangement. The school uniform issue could occur on weekend visits, for example).

As you mention 'cases' in this area, I assume your work is related to family courts or similar. As only 10% of contact arrangements are made through the court, you are seeing the worst and most conflictual cases, so your view is a bit like the obstetrician in a High Risk unit who thinks childbirth is more dangerous than it is because they only see it going horribly wrong. People like you don't see families like mine or my friends because, like 90% of separating parents, we haven't gone to court and haven't had to involve any professionals or agencies to sort out problems because we've all been able to agree arrangements that work. We are definitely agreed, by the way, that 50/50 is not suitable for all families, but all I am asking is that you don't generalise as 50/50 being synonymous with the problems you describe because that is just not factual. There can be problems with all contact patterns and are often due to the poor behaviour of one or both of the parents.

I don't think anyone has argued that 50/50 is synonymous with the problems described.

In my experience few couples parent on a 50/50 basis when they are together. There is usually a main carer. Why should it be any different when they separate?

The best arrangements are usually those which offer the best stability, however that is achieved.

In my opinion, the OP's ex's suggestions, and her own, seem fraught with difficulty. They are certainly not 50/50 with any consistency or sense of routine. Surely that's the issue here.

Plus the OP has not actually answered the valid and important questions which have been raised about the ex's home set-up, or whether he has ever cared for all the children on his own for any length of time, or how the suggested arrangements can actually work on a practical level.

I think in this case going to mediation is an excellent plan.

I don't think anyone has argued that 50/50 is synonymous with the problems described.
Olgaga yes, Spero said 'rather it takes into account the huge practical difficulties of shunting children back and forth between two homes.' That very clearly implies that those things are part of having two homes.

In my experience few couples parent on a 50/50 basis when they are together. There is usually a main carer. Why should it be any different when they separate?
I was at home for 2.5 years out of the first 3 years of my son's life. I opted for 50/50 so that my son could see his father every day/frequently - I didn't see why that should be any different when we separated. Seriously, you're suggesting that a child going from seeing a parent everyday to every other weekend is maintaining the status quo and not 'any different', simply because on those 14 days one parent saw the children for a few more hours than the other? Uhm

Really what everyone is saying is that problems are inevitable when it becomes more about parents' rights than childrens' rights.

I know of several families who operate across shared residence and this works in every case because of the proximity of the two homes, an absence of 'point scoring' between the separated parents, sensible and equitable financial arrangements and also some flexibility if a crisis crops up and plans need to be changed. But again in all of these cases, both parents had played a full parenting role prior to the break-up and so the children were used to sustained periods of time alone with mum or dad.

It's a different matter if a parent is making it all about their rights to see their child regardless of their personal decisions to move miles away, withhold money from their ex, use shared residence as a way to pay less while subcontracting out the childcare to new partners or low-paid childcarers, hide behind childcare as a means of avoiding getting a job even when children are older or simply because of very human loneliness. It also rarely works if one of the parents has previously done very little in the way of childcare and domestic tasks associated with it or if there is no respect for the children's autonomy and their need for their own interests and friendships to be maintained.

So the shared residence thing is a bit of a red herring because no residence or contact agreement will work if one or both of the parents are putting their own needs first.

I have never claimed that 50/50 is synonymous with difficulties. Of course it isn't. But it requires two parents who are organised, committed and crucially who get on well with each other and don't seek to control the other - qualities sadly in very short supply in cases I deal with.

But thankfully I do deal with only the worst 10 % so of course there are many families making it work.

But you have to be aware of the qualities you need as people to make it work and the practicalities. You will need to live close to each other or there is a real risk your children will feel 'shunted' about, to meet the needs of their parents.

There is very interesting research from Jennifer McIntosh in Australia which found where parents were in conflict, children reported great dissatisfaction with contact arrangements involving repeated transistions between two homes.

It is wonderful if you can make it work, but be aware of pitfalls and evaluate your relationship with your ex carefully.

Whatever you arrange, keep it all amicable and be relieved that the children can maintain a relationship with both parents. For me, ex won't have/see the children at all.

I think the point about conflict vs amicable is a crucial one. IME children accept all manner of weird and wonderful arrangements happily if the adults involved work together.

However, the problem with all the arguments about 'putting the children's interests first' is that it is so open to interpretation. Thus when an RP objects to the DC's spending more time with the other parent, raising the kinds of issues brought up here and in other similar threads (children needing a 'base' not being 'shunted' around - funny, I've never seen any other travel for any other reason described in this way, only travel to spend time with an NRP) and the NRP objects/argues etc, it is very easy to present that as 'insisting on parental rights'. When in reality, in many cases, the disagreement is about what is best for the children, when the NRP discovers that the RP has them way down the priority list, after friends, wider family, and even organisation of clothes. If we want, as a society, men to think of their role in child-rearing as an essential one, then we have to continue to acknowledge that role post-separation, maintaining or even building bonds so that children can benefit from having two active parents.

Even if that sometimes may result in the school uniform being in the wrong place at the wrong time.