ExH wants more access than I want to give

[SuiteHarmony]

I name-changed a few weeks back ....

I am having a 'family conference' with exH soon to discuss the children, and I am anxious and concerned about how it will go.

I was a SAHM since my eldest was born in 2006. Four kids. I asked H to leave when I found out about his affair in 2014.

At that time, we arranged access 3/14 days, being every second Fri-Mon.

Since early this year, I got a job, and an au pair.

Access is now 4/14, every second Fri-Tues. As H has long holidays (think university terms) he also has approx 5x7 days additional exclusive access.

He wants more. As my children are all 10 and under (youngest is 3), I don't feel that increased overnights are appropriate. I admit that this is tied up with the fact that I feel I have relinquished a huge amount of time with my children due to his selfishness and stupidity.

The job I have enables me to do school drop-offs every morning, and be home by 3.30/4 most days. His doesn't (self-employed).

By choice, I spend my kid nights with the kids. By choice, he would still go out 2/4 of his contact nights.

I have no idea how to communicate in a reasonable way that I have lost enough, and don't want to give more. And that I genuinely feel the kids would have a better outcome from the stability and time I provide. Plus I reared them pretty much single-handedly in the early, demanding years and feel I know them better and they need me more.

I don't know what to do.

I would explain your feelings to your oldest child and allow them a say. Just as you've told us.

Hell no! That is not fair on a 10 year old!

XH left due to an affair when I was pregnant with our third and DS1 was 7. I have never told them why he left and I have never denied them time with their father regardless of how he destroyed me. I can't remember how the conversation came up, but DS1, now 17, said he didn't want to know. That's fine by me, much as I would love to tell them exactly how much of a wanker their father was.

OP you do have to give ground and let go of the bitterness when it comes to the children. I do still seethe inwardly every time I have to pack the DC off but it is for their benefit. They know who does all the day to day crap of looking after them. What might work for you for a practical point of view is every other weekend plus one after school in term time and then increase in the holidays where your XH is able to look after them whilst you work. We have no formal arrangement but work it pretty much like that although holidays are more of a "you can have them for whatever extra times you like" set up.

I don't like the idea of 50:50 either. I do think a child needs one place that is home although obviously they need to feel at home in the other house. It depends on the age of the child TBH, a younger one would know no different and that would be normal for them whereas an older one might struggle. DD has never known any different and she struggled to understand the idea of her friend's parents both living in the same house. Even DS1 said he doesn't really remember his father living here although he knows he did.

For the love of God do NOT tell the 10 year old about the affair.

Stop thinking about yourself OP. I would be gradually increasingly contact until you reached 50 - 50. This would allow everyone involved to get used to the changes (seems you may need that most).

OP, there's a huge fashion on MN for the fallacy that shared parenting is equal parenting, and that you are being unreasonable if you in any way question it.

It's nonsense, in my view. But you'll get some stick on here if you stick to your guns. What is important though is what a court would do, and I fear in these days where contact disputes are given to magistrates to decide (rather than to professional judges) it can be pretty unpredictable.

Some practical points: talking about you losing time, or this being his fault, will not help and you need to stop thinking along those lines.

Everything needs to be about the children and what is in their best interest. Will change benefit them? The current arrangements work,and they are used to and happy with them. Status quo is a good argument for children cases, as is the excellent maxim "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

Being there for school runs is actually a big benefit to the kids: and I say this as a mother who has spent a lot of her salary on nurseries, breakfast and after school clubs. They were fine, but your kids are used to having you, not whatever plans he would make (unless his plan is you'll have them until he rolls home at 7.00pm?)

Stick to your guns, but make sure your reasons are truly child centered, not about your feelings.

** You have to put the kids first and be prepared to compromise. As others have said if he already has some full weeks in the holidays I think maybe adding a weekday night to the week he has no contact may be a fair compromise. It brings the days over a year up without you going days without them on a regular basis. If he is self employed he can likely flex his time around school (depending on exactly what he does) and if he's not abusive there's no reason he can't see them more.

I think 50/50 is totally irrational and unsettling for the children, and makes it hard for either parent to have a good sense of how the children are. 50/50 to me seems quintessentially selfish, literally seeking "my share" rather than putting children's needs first.

I know someone who has 50:50 care. Both parents did a stint as main carer for various reasons when she was small. They found 50:50 works best for them all. They do straight weeks and pick her up Monday from school, drop off is the next Monday to school. Holidays are flexible. They work together to do the best for her. They live close enough to each other and the school that after school activities, play dates etc are steady. If she needs something from the other house they accommodate that. She's late primary now and a very secure and very loved child. They do a great job despite some rough years in the past.

mrsbertbibby has given excellent advice

In the words of a (highly esteemed) family judge I know, any judge who orders 50/50 is intellectually deficient and has forgotten about the needs of the children and is instead going for the easy option of "fairness" for the parents. Sadly there are as many poor judges as great ones, so I would avoid the courts if you can reach a sensible agreement

I don't know many adults who would like to shuttle between houses all the time.

Similarly though I don't know many children who want to go two weeks between seeing a parent.

Somewhere between the two there is a compromise that takes jnto account the needs of the children and your working patterns /their hobbies and clubs.

50:50 has worked very well for my DD for the past 8 years - despite high conflict between me and her Dad at times.

We've tweaked it over the years, but the fundamental principle stands - and far from feeling unsettled by not having a base, DD appreciates the benefits of having two different homes, each of which has differing benefits and disadvantages. We've talked about it at length. Her Dad is into his gadgets, so sleepovers etc are done there where DD and her friends can watch movies on huge TVs with surround sound. We're far more 'country' - pets, meals round a big table with conversation, growing our own food etc. As she says, if she misses not having TV here, she knows it's not long before she goes back to his, and if she's fed up with instant meals at his house, she knows she'll get home cooked in a few days. He has a big, extended family that get together regularly, I'm not in contact with mine so it's just me, DH and her. DD enjoys both.

She transfers between homes through school - and has belongings at each house. The few bits that she does want to take between the two (laptop etc) get dropped off or picked up by one of the adults when they're passing - we live a few miles apart.

It has not been easy at times, and the temptation to insist I am the "primary carer" and he just has contact has been very strong, but now she's approaching adulthood, I'm glad I didn't because she has a far more rounded life experience by having two involved parents (and stepparents). He wasn't a good husband, and he hasn't been the kind of parent I would be, but there is no one right way to do it and she deserves the chance to experience both.

To be clear, I'm not saying shared care with an equal time element can't work, of course it can, and if it works, that's great.

But this is a case where a different arrangement has pertained, successfully, for some time. In the absence of a pressing need to change it, why should the kids' worlds be turned upside down a second time? They have good quality time with their dad. Lucky them. They don't need iT measured out with egg timers to improve it.

50/50 may work well for the parent, but not so for the child.
If a child misses a club, it's not working for them.
Lots of children don't see their parents equally due to work.

50/50 may work well for the parent, but not so for the child.
If a child misses a club, it's not working for them.

But that works both ways. I know of DCs who miss clubs due to their mums work commitments, yet she refuses to allow their dad to pick them up and take them to the activity because it would give him extra time with the DCs and she's not comfortable with that.

Would you say that their care arrangement, with mum as primary carer, "isn't working" because the DC misses a club?

From the child's point of view, yes.

I totally agree mrsbert what matters is whether 50/50 is genuinely best for the children or has been decided upon because it is equal, and equal is conflated with "fair", for the parents

Huge conceptual difference between the two. but there is a massive failing to understand that by many.

I have 4 DC and its been 50:50 for 2 years.
Youngest dc were 7 yo when we split.

It works really well and the DC are happy and well adjusted. They have clothes and belongings in both houses and have never shown upset or distress at living in 2 homes.
We do a 4 day rotation as my ex works shifts so they get to see both parents in the week.

I have a childminder for the youngest 2 (I work full time) as ex is on his days off when he has them so I suppose given what some posters have said about school run being important and the parent being there for DC I should not be allowed to have my children more than eow

50:50 happened because my children love both parents and not seeing us for over a week would have been upsetting. DC have a right to spend as much time as possible with their mum and dad so you have to do what works.

I completly disagree with those who say 50:50 is bad for the child especially when they have zero experience of it.

From the child's point of view, yes

Well, of course, but not many 8 year olds are capable of objectively evaluating a set of circumstances to determine whether it is fair or not.

There are 1000's of DCs who miss out of clubs or activities due to parents health, work commitments, financial constraints or just a lack of willingness to accommodate it. I'm sure the child thinks that their mums shift arrangements are "not working" for them if they have to go to an ASC sometimes, rather than the sports club they enjoy more, for instance.

Using that as a way of judging whether or not a care arrangements is suitable is incredibly judgemental and would place many parents arrangements in the category of "not working for the child".

what matters is whether 50/50 is genuinely best for the children

Is there really one single "best way" to parent DCs, though? Or are there many different ways, each with their supporters and detractors?

Well that's lovely, OP, but I imagine it works because you believe it's best for your particular kids, with their particular parents, and that you both worked bloody hard to make it work.

It just doesn't work that way for all families, especially where the kids are very tiny when the split happens, or there's an inability to work together.

And I didn't say parents who rely on childcare shouldn't have their kids. I wouldn't have mine if that were so. I said in this particular case mum's school run availability is a genuine benefit not to be overlooked.

People really don't get that each family is different. Baffling.

People really don't get that each family is different. Baffling.

I think they do get it hence why some are saying 50:50 is not unreasonable.

The current arrangements work,and they are used to and happy with them. Status quo is a good argument for children cases, as is the excellent maxim "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

So if the OP had to get a different job with different hours meaning she was not home after school would you say she shouldn't because it will change the status quo?

Circumstances change thats life and children adapt just like everyone does. I was always at home with DC after school but when I split with the ex I needed to get full time work. The status quo changed and the children went with it because life cannot stay the same forever.

It seems it is always the mums who say no to 50:50 sighting the childrens needs/routine as the reason but I think it is the mums own feelings they are thinking about.

I would not allow 50/50 for the kids under 7! For the 10(?) year old this is something that could work but you should both have a talk with the 10 year old and have a trail period after the new year for 1-2 months to see how this works and if it the 10 year is liking the arrangement. The younger children gets a BIG NO, and the 3 year old is out of the question, it is not healthy to put the younger ones in this position as they are not old enough or mature enough to deal with the 50/50 setup. It has proven to not be a good thing for most younger children, though older children can deal with this better but should only be done if the child is happy- not content, but happy- with this type of arrangement. If the 10 year old wants to give this a go, take the 1-2 months and then you met up again and the 10 year old can say how it was. If any of you feel that this arrangement isn't benefiting the 10 year old the trail ends there and reverts back to the old one. If the 10 year old is happy and likes the arrangement then you keep it for the 10 yo- this doesn't mean the other kids gets this automatic, not all kids can handle the 50/50 arrangement and you both need to consider what is best for each of your children as they grow and develop.

I would like to add that the best arrangements I have seen for younger kids where 50/50 has worked well is when the parents are neighbors or they have the house as the main home for the kids and the parents are the ones moving every other week so the kids have a stable home. It means that the parents have a flat that they live in during the week they aren't with the kids while the other one lives in the house with the kids.

How can you possibly say what does or doesn't work for every kid of a certain age? It's as wrongheaded as the "anything less than half is selfishness" camp.

50:50 happened because my children love both parents

Er, yes, most children do indeed love both parents.

I have to say that I struggle with this notion that the mother is the one who always gets to decide what she will allow in terms of the father's access to his own children. Even to the point that people on MN will advocate that the mother withdraw access for instance if the father has nights out and leaves the children with a babysitter, on the presumption that "contact time is time he's supposed to spend with his children," whereas no-one bats an eyelid if the mother does the same.

In terms of a 50/50 arrangement, why is it that when a man actually wants 50/50 access people automatically assume that it's because he doesn't want to pay maintenance? Why can't it be because he wants to see his children as much as their mother does?

50/50 can work depending on how people arrange it and how the children take to it. And my view has always been that children's access should be a more fluid thing anyway, what works when they're little might well change when they reach secondary and vice versa.

When me and eXH first split we had a 50/50 arrangement where DS spent two nights during the week and every other weekend with each of us. We live close enough that books/stuff could be dropped off/picked up accordingly if need be. But DS' base was here as I wasn't working when we split, and so I was in a position to do school pick-up/drop-offs.

Now things have changed, and DS hasn't spent a weekend at his dad's for a while, but he still stays there during the week. But he always comes here first. I know that eXH would have liked a one week on, one week off arrangement, but I never thought this would be in DS' best interests, and when eXH mentioned it to DS he flatly said that he wouldn't want it.

Now, I realise that the position I'm currently in with DS puts me in the favourable position in terms of time that DS spends here, however, it would never have occurred to me to start dictating when my DS should be allowed to see his father.

Does anyone have links to this proven fact that young children do not cope well with 50:50?

It is always mothers who state they must have just 1 home and that in its self brings stability and anything else is just not good for the child
I wish these mothers would loosen their control a bit and at least try a 50:50 arrangement if it is doable.

I make parenting choices with my ex because he is half of that parenting team. I dont think it is good for the DC for me to have all the control and decide who does what and when.

Whats your point soup ?

50/50 has worked perfectly well for my DCs my exw and myself for nearly 4 yrs , I have seen no negative affect on either of them ..they have two houses with there own belongings and friends at each , access to DCs shouldn't be used as a tool to punish one parent .