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?

Sorry, don't see the distinction. Australian research showed that high conflict parents, unsurprisingly, managed shared care very badly. Children thus placed more frequently in middle of parental conflict, all reported they hated it.

But I agree that its not as simple as saying just ban all shared care arrangements then.

Think we just need more recognition that focus should be on the individual children and what is achievable in their best interests, not what parent wants or thinks her/she is entitled to.

Sorry, don't see the distinction.
Let me try explain what I mean. High conflict separations are always bad for children. Everyone is agreed on that. It would be better if they didn't exist, but they do, so then there's the question about how best to manage those situations - and that's the bit I'm talking about.

There is a widespread belief that where a conflictual situation exists, shared parenting can never work and is potentially harmful for children. There is other research that suggests that is not as straightforward as saying "Conflict situations proscribe some form of shared parenting" and that it can benefit children in conflict situations - but obviously it needs to be planned and executed taking it into account so that it's actually good for the children and they don't continue to get caught in the cross-fire.

Think we just need more recognition that focus should be on the individual children and what is achievable in their best interests, not what parent wants or thinks her/she is entitled to.
Definitely agree. The problem in Australia is that they have a legal presumption of equal parenting and that has led to all sorts of problems in Australia like increased litigation, long delays in sorting out arrangements and families having shared parenting when it wasn't appropriate. A lot of the people McIntosh dealt with were in that position and forced into it.

I don't think we are disagreeing about much if anything. Shared parenting is highly unlikely to work well if the parents involved in it disrespect and dislike each other. I don't say 'never' but I think it very, very unlikely.

Despite the obvious difficulties in the Australian experience, so many people are still advocating for it here. As if the wording of any particular law can ever impact on the emotional bitterness and hatred some parents feel for each other.

So I think the emphasis should be on trying to get people to think BEFORE they have children. After, it is too late and you are stuck with each other for many years.

I don't think we are disagreeing about much if anything.
Agreed. We're not disagreeing

Despite the obvious difficulties in the Australian experience, so many people are still advocating for it here.
Yes, I think the legal presumption of shared parenting would be the wrong way to go and I know some groups want that here even though it's gone wrong there. It shouldn't be about the parents' rights.

But cinnamon as you have pointed out, only 10% of all child arrangement cases ended up in the courts, and by definition they are there because there is no agreement and usually communication has completely broken down and there is a high degree of hostility from one or both parties.

That isn't what we're talking about here.

All I and others have been saying is that there should be no assumption about a "split" of time.

The assumption has always got to be, what's best for the children? That's the starting point. Not 50-50, 60-40, 70-30.

Children aren't possessions, or a bank balance. The right arrangement is always what's best for the child in any particular family. It's not about research you've found on the internet. It's not about "principles".

It's about what's best for the children, not the parents.

That will vary from family to family.

There is no "starting point" which relates to any amount of time. The starting point has to be what's right for the particular children in that particular family with those particular parents with the particular care resources they have available.

Everything else is just propaganda!

But Olgaga I have already stated multiple times that I agree with you and all the other posters that say that decision about parenting arrangements post-separation must be made for the children's best interests, that each case must be assessed on its individual situation, is different for different families and that there is no best solution for all families. Those have always been my views and I've agreed with them completely on this thread. I'm really not sure what you think I'm arguing with you about at all as I agree with most of the things you've I do not think children are possessions to be split. I do not think anything different to "The assumption has always got to be, what's best for the children? That's the starting point. Not 50-50, 60-40, 70-30." and I haven't said anything to suggest it.

I am interested in the research in this area because it's obviously an area of personal interest to me (and I'm a scientist). I wanted to know as much as I could about the evidence so I could, for example, look out for any problems my DC could have, but the only motivation for my choice was my DC's best interests and not breaking their heart any more than it had to be. It had nothing to do with principles or research or fairness for my ex and I. That said, it is important to know what the evidence tells us and teaches us about what the best things for children are and how we can make the best decisions for them.

My only objections and arguments when this topic arises is with poor arguments and/or negative bias people have towards shared parenting and I do always challenge them when I see them because, like you, I want people to realise that there is no one-size-fits all solution and to be well-informed.

Spero I would have thought that where 'the parents involved... disrespect and dislike each other' any care/access arrangements are going to be a bit of a nightmare. The Australian research is going to be about shared care because that is the default there, but I would be surprised if research in the UK didn't say the same thing about EOW arrangements when that was the default.

So can shared parenting work when there is conflict? I am in a high conflict divorce (not my choice, I have to say) but feel like I'm struggling to work out how we can co-parent when I feel so totally attacked by him constantly. I don't think EOW is enough, but can't cope with the thought of much interaction with him (he is abusive). I want the best for my children, and am doing my best to facilitate what is clearly a positive relationship for them - but I am very sure that what is best for them is to maintain primary care with me.

It seems very difficult to work something out which blurs the lines between EOW and cooperative care.

cinnamon if you are indeed a scientist then you will be aware there is a huge amount of research on this issue, and not just the one study you prefer and have chosen to highlight. The Australian experience showed that the legislation introducing a presumption of 50-50 care arrangements was hastily written gobbledegook.

That's why it was dismissed by David Norgrove, and the current Government has not introduced a presumption of shared parenting.

The way you talk about EOW arrangements as being "outdated" and "a throwback to the 70s/80s" is quite an assumption for a scientist to make, and takes no account of either practical or historical considerations let alone the needs of the child.

In fact arrangements for children tend to reflect what is manageable for the children and the parents. That is why EOW arrangements remain commonplace.

You may think your own arrangement is common because it appears to have suited a small group of people you know. As a scientist you will certainly know that your own group of acquaintances is hardly going to be a representative sample.

Properly shared parenting requires geographical proximity and reasonably amicable relations in order to work. That isn't always the case even for the 90% of couples who do not end up in the family courts.

It requires properly shared parenting to have been the norm prior to separation. That certainly isn't always the case.

You also don't have anything whatsoever to say about the relevance of the ages of the children concerned, and how such arrangements may need to evolve over time, and the difficulties of a group of children with a large age range.

As I said - it's propaganda. You have yours, and I have mine.

That doesn't matter. What matters is the welfare of the children in each individual case.

For anyone who's interested I have compiled a lot of advice and links here covering separation, divorce and arrangements for children.

When parents dislike and disrespect each other and can't or won't communicate, often the only contact arrangement that can work is every other weekend as one parent can pick up after school on Friday and drop off on Mondays, thus cutting out any direct contact with the other parent. Then the only time they have to worry about direct handovers is the school hols.

I honestly don't see how it can ever work that parents who hate each other can yet co-operate well enough to tolerate frequent meetings and discussions which is what a greater degree of shared parenting must inevitably require.

I hesitate to say 'never' as I am sure someone will claim they have managed it but it must be vanishingly rare. Even after five years I don't trust myself to sit down with my ex and talk calmly given how his selfish disregard for his daughter's needs is a continued thorn in my side. So we arrange contact at arms length and via email.

It is not ideal but sometimes the emotional issues are very difficult to put to one side however much we are told we must do it for our children's sake. My problem is that he continues to hurt her so it is very difficult to be all calm and matey in that kind of situation. Luckily for me (if not for her) he is on the other side of the world. But I know I would find it very very difficult to have more frequent dealings with him.

Olgaga But I am against the presumption of shared care like they did in Australia! I clearly stated I was against the presumption of it and I support the government's position of having NO default presumption about care arrangements. I've bookmarked many references and articles on it over the years, so I'm not sure where you got the idea I only get my information from one study.

The way you talk about EOW arrangements as being "outdated" and "a throwback to the 70s/80s" is quite an assumption for a scientist to make, and takes no account of either practical or historical considerations let alone the needs of the child.
I do think that EOW arrangements being the assumed 'standard' is outdated and I very much am taking into account the things you say I'm not when I say that. That model (sole custody with fortnightly visits with NRP) was the standard of the 70's and 80's as divorce rates increased dramatically and became accepted as 'the norm' through convention, not because it had been shown proved to be best for children. A lot of time has passed since then so we've been able to accumulate a lot of information about all the different factors that contribute to children's wellbeing. I do think that what's right for each family is different and it may be, in a some cases, that EOW is what is best for a family, but overall when you look at the outcomes of thousands of children, it has problems.

That is why EOW arrangements remain commonplace.
They remain commonplace because it's traditionally what has happened in the past, not because it's ever been shown to be in children's best interests or because it suits most parents.

You also don't have anything whatsoever to say about the relevance of the ages of the children concerned, and how such arrangements may need to evolve over time, and the difficulties of a group of children with a large age range.
Well no, I don't say anything about that, but largely I've just been agreeing with some very broad points made by various posters not writing an essay about it. Would you like a discussion about it in great detail? It's likely we're in agreement though.

As I said - it's propaganda. You have yours, and I have mine.
What a very strange statement I've been agreeing with you and others on most points.

Properly shared parenting requires geographical proximity and reasonably amicable relations in order to work.
Yes, I think we agreed that several posts back Again, I'm not sure where you think I'm arguing or disagreeing with you.

ladymuckbeth & spero I don't have personal experience of making it work in a high conflict situation, but there are apparently ways of adapting shared parenting for parents with conflict because, as you say spero, it will never work if they try to do it with flexible co-operation. The things that are suggested e.g. minimal direct contact between parents, pre-agreed formal methods of communicating information about children, using mediation for unresolvable issues and things like that. In the US they do something Parallel Parenting (as opposed to Co-parenting) and that is being used more and more there. What happens is that all aspects of parenting are pre-agreed in a plan and then contact between the parents is kept to a minimum. It does require both parents to commit to the plan even if they can't stand to be in contact with each other. Incidentally, although my relationship with my ex is very amicable and not conflictual, we hardly see each other for handovers in the week because my DC is at school (and then an after-school club) so one of us may drop them at school and the other collects in the evening.

I've had this problem with my ds dad, he wanted 50-50 arrangement. So we tried this at first
Week 1.

M- dad
T-dad
Wed-mum
Thurs-mum
F-dad
S-mum
S-dad

Week 2 was the other way around. But with work, it was too bitty and hard to say to my boss at the time what I could do. Plus my son didn't seem settled

So we tried

Week 1
M-m
T-m
W-m
T-d
F-m
S-m
S-m

When it swapped over the next week so he is with dad. Worked for a while but then my ds started showing signs of stress, and not really spending any with his dad, as he would get anyone and everyone to pick him from school and have him over the weekend so most weeks when he was with his dad he could be using 5 or 6 different people to look after ds. He refused to pay for child care.

So now I've got him all the time apart from one night every week and then every other weekend he is with his dad. Much easier and not so stressful.

cinnamon

That model (sole custody with fortnightly visits with NRP) was the standard of the 70's and 80's as divorce rates increased dramatically and became accepted as 'the norm' through convention, not because it had been shown proved to be best for children.

I disagree that it became 'the norm' through convention. It became 'the norm' because for most families, it is the most practical solution, as policy briefing from the Nuffield Foundation shows.

Equal (or near-equal) parenting time has been found to be one of the most fluid patterns of care, typically converting into more traditional arrangements, which is perhaps not surprising given the logistical and relational challenges of shared time.

Despite the gradual increase in shared time arrangements post separation they remain unusual, both in countries without legislative intervention like the UK and in countries that have legislated to encourage it

Indeed the table on page 3 of the policy briefing shows that shared care (50-50) in the UK is estimated to take place in 3.1% of separated families. Even in Sweden, often held up as the "gold standard", it is only estimated at 28%.

You say it may be, in a some cases, that EOW is what is best for a family, but overall when you look at the outcomes of thousands of children, it has problems

I'm not sure what you're basing that statement on. It is separation, the resulting financial impact and ongoing parental conflict which causes "problems". From the same study:

Research shows that the best interests of children after parental separation are most strongly connected to the quality of parenting they receive, the quality of the relationship between their parents, and practical resources such as adequate housing and income ? not to any particular pattern of care or amount of time (Irving & Benjamin 1995a; Lye 1999; Moyer 2004; Pryor & Rodgers 2001; Shaffer 2007; Smyth & Wolcott 2003).

Most telling is this analysis on page 8:

We also know that children often feel responsible for their parents? happiness, believe they should share themselves and want to avoid parental conflict. As a result, children who are unhappy with their shared time arrangements may be very reluctant to raise the possibility of changing those arrangements (Cashmore et al 2010; Haugen 2010; Neale et al 2003; Singer 2008; Tucker 2006).

I agree - the eow model with perhaps a midweek visit has become the norm because it is often the only model that is sustainable, at least in the time immediately following the aftermath of separation.

I rally don't think fundamentally any of us are disagreeing. We are all perhaps guilty of offering allegiance to the model we are most comfortable with. - I only deal with the angry, hurt and bitter parents (often with very good reasons to be so!) so I tend to be more sceptical about the practicality of more fluid arrangements.

But I think we all agree focus must be on the child and parents need to try to be flexible.

And more than two colours on a spreadsheet will become a criminal offence when I am prime minister.

50/50

go see a mediator

does he live neareby?

also do you really want every weekend on your lonesone?

Olgaga Thanks for the posting the Nuffield Report. There are two different issues though.

1. Should there be a legal presumption of equal parenting? Should that be the default legal position when dealing with with the 10% that end up in court?
2. Is shared care (whether 50/50 or other arrangements) a good thing in the right circumstances for all children (the 90% whose parents don't go to court + the 10% who do)? What are those circumstances? What are the advantages? When is it not good idea?

The Nuffield Report is concerned with #1, not #2. They even explain that: But valuing and facilitating the on-going role of both parents in their children?s lives in most cases is different from legislating for shared time in litigated cases. So the focus in this paper is on what the key UK and international research tells us about the benefits and risks of legislating for shared time for parents who appear before the family courts. (Their emphasis)

For the third time: I am against legislation that would bring in a legal presumption of 50/50 parenting. Almost everyone is. Gingerbread, The Law Society, Women's Aid etc are all against the presumption of equal parenting.

Shared parenting does not necessarily mean 50/50 (or "equal parenting"). I know sometimes some authors do use 'shared parenting' to mean 'equal' or 50/50 parenting and sometimes other authors and researchers mean the different definition: that both parents actually do parenting and are involved in all aspects of their children's life, rather than one parent doing all of the parenting type activity and the other parent being a "Disney Dad" (or mum), but I was very clear several posts back that when I was talking about 'shared parenting' on this thread it didn't mean 50/50 and didn't refer necessarily to any specific time split. Shared parenting is about the quality and type of time spent with both parents, and only to a lesser degree about time. The UK Government's position is "Both Governments believe that children benefit from both parents being as fully involved as possible in their child's upbringing, unless there are safety or welfare concerns" - as fully involved as possible CAFCASS define good quality contact as "having a relationship with and being ?looked after? by their parent". By the way, being against the legal presumption of equal parenting in the 10% of cases that go to court is not the same being against some form of shared parenting across the general population in the appropriate circumstances.

There are many variations between EOW and 50/50 that all count as 'shared parenting'. 50/50 is an extreme position, but I think EOW is also pretty extreme at the other end of the spectrum. It is definitely about the quality of time, rather than the absolute amount of time, but EOW doesn't lend itself that kind of quality very well. I'm not saying it's completely impossible for NRPs to have quality time EOW, but actual meaningful parenting really does count for children's wellbeing and tends to require more time. There's plenty of consensus on meaningful parental involvement from both parents being better for children. My step-brother and step-sister stayed with us (mother, step-father and me) EOW in the 80's and they were guests in their own father's home. They slept in the spare room and had no possessions of their own in our house. That's how it was done in those days.

Using the figures and report that you kindly provided for me (fixed link, only 13.1% had EOW ('several times a month'). 58.8% of NRP see their children at least once a week or more, with 39.6% seeing their children 'several times a week' or more. Those numbers are an even greater proportion of parents who see their children at all if you remove the 13.2% (higher than EOW) that never see their children. EOW is the minority, according to your figures and it seems shared parenting (with all its variations) is now the norm and actually that matches the people I know who have separated from their partners.

I agree - the eow model with perhaps a midweek visit has become the norm because it is often the only model that is sustainable
With the help of Olgaga's figures on UK residency patterns we can see it's not the norm though. 13.1% of NRP see their children several times a month and 19.2% see their children at least weekly. We can't tell what proportion of that 19.2% is EOW + one midweek visit and what is every weekend, but using these figures, the most EOW + one midweek visit can be is 32.3% of parents, less than the proportion of parents who see their children several times a week or more, and EOW only accounts for 13.1%. I'm not sure it is the only model that is sustainable actually. Using the McIntosh report you cited where she looked at (mostly enforced) shared care in high conflict cases, 38.9% of cases that started as shared switched to sole custody after 4 years, but over the same time 25% of the cases that started in sole custody switched to shared parenting. Have seen similar figures in a different study, but have spent way too long on here now and need to go make dinner and iron school shirts for tomorrow so can't dig it out right away

Yes that's because many couples go for EOW and one night midweek, if that's doable. Hence the correspondingly high figure for "once a week or more", and "several times a month".

Otherwise there is 12 days between contact which can feel like too long.

Which is why it now seems to be the common contact order if agreement cannot be reached and it goes to the family court.

However, even that only works in practice if both parents live close enough to school, when the child reaches that age.

As you have said, shared parenting, (and shared residence) does not mean 50-50 is not the same thing at all.

And at that point I think we can all agree to agree!