Folks, they are threats. They are not facts.
Just because someone says 'I will take you to court' does not mean that the court will do what he says. And he's in for a shock if he believes that!
The courts process is there as a last resort if you can't resolve things between yourselves.
Your first steps should be to get legal advice and get your divorces in action. A solicitor will likely guide you with options for the children's welfare considerations, e.g. how much contact, frequency. This is very much age dependent.
If you can't afford solicitors, then use the CAB. That is what they are they for - they help guide you through the process.
The courts view is that the needs of the children come first and that having both parents active in their lives is in the children's best interests in all but the most rare circumstances. And I don't think that's flawed as an ideology.
It does not mean Parent A "keeps" the child and Parent B "loses" them.
It means that ways are looked into for you to share parenting after the breakdown of your relationship. Parenting can be shared from 50/50 to 100/0. Clearly anything close to 100/0 is because the Parent B has decided to walk away from involvement, or because their are real and dangerous risks to that child.
Financial arrangements are very much separate to access arrangements.
It means that practical arrangements and agreements are made to bring up the children, where they will live clearly forms part of any divorce. Your children will be parented for a portion of time by your former spouses. How much time is very much dependent on their ages and what they are used to.
Most find EOW and one evening visit a week is the norm - because kids have to go to school one parent is usually in full time work, which makes child-rearing difficult.
Very often the person who was the primary carer before the end of the marriage is the primary carer following the demise of the marriage.
There are some awful husbands around. It does not necessarily mean they are awful parents.