Should 50/50 custody be the default after separation and divorce?

[RatsRatsRatss]

What would you say were the reasons a parent doesn’t see much of their child after separation and divorce? Why do you think this happens? Would you judge a parent who doesn’t see much of their kid?

Do you believe (abuse/neglect/deadbeat parents) aside that the default after divorce should be 50/50 custody? Should a child have a right to a relationship with both parents after separation?

interested to hear what everyone’s opinions are.

Yep

It is as far an I know. It might not happen but it's the default

Custody should always be based on what’s best for the child. In most cases outside of the exceptions you enumerate, that will be 50-50.

You seem to have inadvertently started the same thread twice.

No

I think the child absolutely has a right to a relationship with both parents but 50-50, with mid-week transfers etc, in my experience is disruptive for the child. A primary home with plenty of time with the other parent, and a civil co-parenting relationship, is ideal for the child.

I think it’s very individual and depends a lot on whether both parents are good parents and living arrangements. A child would not do better spending 50% of their time with a shitty parent or being carted an hour each way to school every day.

Now if Dh and I were to divorce (we are very happily married), yes, 50/50 would be the best thing for our dc as Dh is a great, engaged dad. I wouldn’t want them seeing him less than that.

When my parents divorced, I had zero overnights with my dad. He would come visit for lunch or a day out at our house, supervised by my mum, maybe once a month. He wasn’t a competent parent. Had never had me solo overnight while they were married. I only remember one time he ever took me somewhere on his own, it was to McDonald’s. He just wasn’t that kind of parent. It was definitely the best thing that my mum had me 100% and he’d swing by for lunch a few times a year. From about 11, we also lived 1.5 hours away due to my school, so logically was also just not possible.

It should be but it's not always realistic due to many factors. So no I'd not judge until I fully understood the situation.

It depends what the situation was before the split. 2 hands on parents should get 50/50 as that's what the child is used to. If one parent has done 90% before the split then a sudden 50/50 split may not be in the child's best interests.

Theoretically yes, but for many reasons it often doesn’t work out to be the best thing for the kids in real life.

My ex and I have about an 80/20 split (I have the larger share). On a practical basis my ex decided to move half an hour away from where I live and where the kids go to school/have all their friends and activities, so it would be a massive faff for them to go back and forth.

From a parenting quality perspective, I’m by far the better, calmer, more engaged and more knowledgeable parent. My ex is often short-tempered and emotionally neglectful, is only lightly engaged with their interests and is mostly interested in his new girlfriend and hobbies. Not exactly what you’d call abusive but just unpleasant to be around.

He keeps them well dressed and fed and has spurts of Disney Dad behaviour but by and large my kids feel far more relaxed, comfortable and loved at my house.

No.

Horrible idea, especially for 5's and under.

A setup for the parents not the child(ren)

No

In an ideal world yes, but it often doesn’t work that way in reality. My parents split when I was very young and for the first few years I’d see my dad every Saturday or Sunday with the occasional overnight stay. Over time this decreased especially during my teenage years. My dad just wasn’t a very engaged parent, I didn’t even have my own room at his place, which looking back I find weird as it was my mum and I who moved out and he stayed in that house for many years, so I did have a bedroom there at one point but I guess when we left he decided I didn’t need a bedroom there anymore. I very much felt like a guest when I went to his, rather than having two places I could call home. I can’t imagine what it would have been like if I’d had to have lived there 50% of the time.

I’ve known a few people with separated parents or who have separated from the child’s other parent over the years and I don’t think any of the kids involved spent an equal amount of time with both parents, most would see their dads at weekends or during school holidays.

I don’t think it’s very common at all to have an equal split but if it can be done with minimal disruption to the child’s life and both parents are equally engaged with raising the children and doing the every day things like school runs and appointments and both homes can be made to feel like home then I’m all for it, I just think it’s difficult to do in practice. Sadly there will usually be one parent (often the mother but not always) who takes on the majority of the responsibility.

No

50:50 would be ideal but takes no account of people needing to move around for work.

Or when it's only 50:50 for the courts. My ex refused to do any parenting when ds was tiny. He didn't get up once in the night for ds, changed about four nappies in total (never dirty ones) and wouldn't get involved in meal times or general care/play at all. By the time ds was two, I gave up trying to encourage and include him, and we left. ds didn't notice his dad wasn't with us.

Then when ds was 6, toilet trained, sleeping through and able to use a knife & fork, and ex had found a new woman, he tried to demand 50:50. Err, no. By then we'd moved away, ds was in school, he was settled and happy. I refused to disrupt our lives again, just so ex could play daddy of the year. The court agreed.

Every circumstance will be different.

I see it play out in my street with a family where the three older children do 2/2/3. Alternating each week. It looks exhausting! Purely for the parents benefit not the children's.....

The youngest child lives with the mum and her new partner so her life isn't disrupted, only her three older siblings. I suspect the woman had an affair and that child was the product of it. What a mess!

I did 90% of everything for the children, both with health issues with so many appointments and day to day needs. Other parent wanted 50/50 for CMS reasons and was very clear they would not pay a penny.
If a parent wasn't parenting in the relationship and is unable to put the kids first, then no i don't think 50/50 is good for the kids.
Children i have taught - once they get to teen years they don't follow the 50/50, and tend to have one home as a base and visit the other. I think that shows a lot that kids do want that base/home and to not feel like a visitor across two homes. I don't know any teen that has maintained 50/50 in any capacity.
When you have two fully invested parents from birth, then the status quo should be maintained as that is best for the child. But hopefully in these situation parents are then flexible and work together by successfully coparenting with the kids at the forefront of decisions. Otherwise 50/50 just doesn't work for the kids.

I have 50/50 of my two now teen DC. It's rubbish. Exh refused to move from family home and I couldn't buy him out, I 100% swear his eyes lit up when the mediator said 50/50 would mean no maintenance payable. Until we split up I was pretty much the main carer imo (not just the practical stuff but the mental load). It's crap for the kids going back and forth, they would in all honesty probably jump at the chance to have their one base as his house as that's their home since birth but I can't give up my children to that so 50/50 it is. I think it would be a lot different if he'd have moved.

No. I think 50/50 benefits the parents but not the children. Ime having to pack my belongings as a teenager from one home to another on a weekly basis was horrible, neither felt like I could settle in and relax properly. Courts should consider that a child needs one stable home, being raised between 2 isn't fair for a child.

No. It's "fair" to the parents. Akin to cutting a cake in half.
I don't think any person would rather live between two houses, we need a home. I think if you have two very hands on parents you're unlikely to split anyway, most divorces are because the blokes a lazy selfish nob or a cheater. If you're both lovely, hands on parents that get along well but you've just lost the spark you're more willing to stay together for the kids childhood even if there's no thrill or passion anymore. I think 5050 needs very close co-parenting, living within a very close distance, preferably kids walking distance. High levels of communication.

This just isn't possible for most people and the kid is torn in half between two different home lives. You can have a relationship with both parents without being uprooted.

Most kids only see their live-in, non-primary parent at weekends anyway. They probably get more quality time spending every other weekend with their complete attention than a few snippets here and there in between their work and hobbies.

I actually think 50/50 is the worst possible arrangement for the children and focuses far too much on what's "fair" for the parents.

Maybe it should be 50/50 for some people but in practice it wouldn't work for everyone if it was enforced.

XH couldn't manage 1 day after school and EOW so there is no way he could have done 50/50. At that time he was starting work early in the morning and home late so couldn't have had her and taken her /picked up from school. He moved 20 miles away initially then over 3 hours away. He would never have her in the school holidays. There is no way that 50/50 would have worked. He couldn't even maintain weekly phone contact.

He has moved home around 10 times in 15 years which does not give a child a stable home.

An equal split should be the ideal split but what’s best for the child(ren) should always come first.
It’s important that they have a base as well as a structure that supports them.

We tried 50/50 with our toddler but found it defaulted to me having her 70% of the time.
Partly due to me having always been more involved with our child, as well as the shifts my ex was working and her mental state.

We might shift back to a more equal split in future.

It’s important both parents work together and for the best interests of the child.

No, I think the default should be the child's norm as much as possible. A parent that hasn't been doing 50:50 parenting shouldn't be rewarded with 50:50 on divorce. Because we all know they won't do it. They only want 50:50 of the easy part, not the hard slog bit.

There is no default best way to split contact. The best thing depends on many factors like,

How maturely the parents are able to co-parent
The personalities of the children involved
How close both parents live to the school
How involved each parent is in the grunt work of parenting
The hours each parent work
The household set up at each parents home
The age of the children

And many many other factors.

There are a lot of sweeping statements about 50/50 being good or bad but in reality it just depends. Pre conceived notions like these are what leads to parents making bad decisions about contact arrangements.