Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

DH just joined Families need fathers-any experiences?

112 replies

beekeeper2 · 31/05/2010 12:33

We have agreed to divorce and are attending mediation, meeting 2 on Friday really productive & made headway agreeing arrangements for children.
Then DH joins families need fathers and has now come out really fighting-going for custody of children, minimum equal shared care. He works full time mon-fri and is not flexible in that, I work three short days and have total flexibility, but more importantly don't want the kids to have too much instability, or to see us in disagreement-does anyone have experience with families need fathers?Seem to be making things a lot worse to me but obviously DH would disagree hmm

OP posts:
Maisiethemorningsidecat · 31/05/2010 20:01

If a DC is sick - we share the care, working to a very strict rota. In exceptional circumstances only we will 'swap'. Although that works for us I'm very aware that other couples don't have that flexibility - one parent's lack of flexibility doesn't and shouldn't mean that they are automatically deemed 'primary carer'.

Tanga · 31/05/2010 20:26

And that's just one method. It's an incredibly complex idea and each family has there own variations. Having a full-time job shouldn't automatically disqualify someone from being an equal parent or spending time with their children, post-split. Undoubtedly there are parents (of either gender) who don't play a full parental role in their childrens lives but I think generally most parents are in the middle of the spectrum, doing their best for their kids, which is why Joint Residence as a starting point is the only fair way to go.

HappyMummyOfOne · 31/05/2010 21:05

Unless i've missed some info, where does the OP say that she gave up her career to be the main carer therefore only working PT? Maybe she only wanted to work part time and didnt give up anything?

I think 50/50 is a good start, nobody owns the children and they should have equal time with both parents regardless of who works the most.

snowmama · 31/05/2010 22:03

a couple of points/assumptions I would just like to counter here:

  1. I contacred FNF recently and they gave very supprtive advice, and suggested it would be good for ex H to contact them so he could understand how i was not being unreasonable to him.
  2. Throughout our marriage, I worked longer hours and H covered sick days more often than me...
Kids live now primarily with me...lots and lots of big gender assumptions being made here......
Sakura · 01/06/2010 01:33

HappyMummy, if the OP didn't bear the children i.e get pregnant, give birth, recover (more than once if there's two kids), then having children wouldn't have had any impact on her earning capacity--as in the case of her husband. It's a very very rare person who just wants to work in a part-time job for the rest of their life for no reason. Usually the main reason is they've got kids, and have therefore had to lose out on dedicating time to their work.

Add to the above that she has not only lost earnings because of child-bearing,but has even taken on the role of primary carer and most likely helped her partner to pursue his own work (every time she cooks him a meal, she is helping him; every time she washes his socks, she is contributing to his career), then it's fair to say we are not starting at a level playing field.

Sakura · 01/06/2010 01:34

That sounds okay, snowmama. Hopefully this FNF is as good as you say.
However, the H should not be going for equal care.

snowmama · 01/06/2010 08:35

Indeed Sakura,

I think my point was really that having organisations like FNF (not F4J).. provide advice, particularly when mediation is involved, can be a useful way of articulating/explaining/supporting when the H's requested care arrangement is not appropriate to current situation..

pithyslicker · 01/06/2010 08:44

Why shouldn't the Dad have equal care? Surely equality works both ways. Lots of things change after a divorce, and the mum may end up having to work more as there will be two houses to fund. So wouldn't it be for the best if she can become self sufficient?

snowmama · 01/06/2010 08:56

I think my point was it read that in the OP, that the DH's request for equal care was 'power play' rather than genuine request.. ( apologies if I have misread this)..

absolutely pithyslicker.. We should all aspiring to and equal care solution.. as (in my simplistic view of the world) we all need to both look after the kids and earn money ...sadly my situation has been complicated by my ex's relationship to alchol.. it is that not his gender, that makes me reluctant to go that route..(sorry bit of a hijack)

StanHouseMuir · 01/06/2010 11:29

Sakura - I am amazed at how biased you are considering how little information the OP posted. You know nothing about their circumstances and how their working arrangements came into being.

Mingg · 01/06/2010 12:05

Heathen "if a DC is sick, who takes the day off work to care for them?"

In our case that would be my husband so does that mean that if we were to divorce he'd get our DS? Or should we go down Sakura's line and because I took full maternity leave and missed on earnings I should get him? I stayed at home because I WANTED to and was able to do so because my husband WORKED. This would well apply to the OP too - just because a parent works does not (necessarily) mean they are not interested in the children or share the care

OptimistS · 01/06/2010 13:02

Hi OP,

If everything was ok before your soon-to-be XH joined FNF, are you sure he's not just having a 'road to Damascus' moment? It's a bit like being a woman and really discovering feminism for the first time - you suddenly start seeing misogyny in all sorts of things that never bothered you before and it takes a while for you to get your head around it and develop a new perspective.

Maybe he joined FNF for some advice and suddenly realised for the first time that fathers can indeed play the traditional female role and be the primary carer following divorce.

If this is the case, then maybe your best bet would be to go along to mediation and say you are prepared to work towards 50/50 shared care but that it is in the children's best interests to continue with the current balance while the divorce goes through - one major change is enough for them right now. In other words, show him you are prepared to meet him half way but phrase it as being all about the kids, rather than about what you or him want. Once he's had time to absorb everything and take in the implications, he may find that his zeal for addressing perceived sexism in family law may fade a little.

I don't know you or your H, so I can't possibly comment whether he really wants to spend more time with his kids or whether he's a bully, but having been married to him you probably have a better idea. I just wanted to suggest this explanation as no one else seems to have considered it.

Good luck and hope it all works out well for everyone - most of all the children.

Sakura · 02/06/2010 02:42

Stanhouse, I find it very suspicious that the H wants to be more involved in the kids' lives only now that their divorcing. DId it not matter to him before that he wasn't much involved in their lives, or that he didn't really spend 50% of the time with them?
NO, it didn't.
It only matters suddenly now that they're divorcing.
It may possibly be as Optimists says: that only now he's realised he could play a bigger role.
But it could also be that he's more concerned about getting his stake than he is about the kids. Or it could even be a darker motivation, as dittany explained, and he wants to get out of paying what he should.

I'm amazed you don't think its relevant that he hadn't offered to go part-time and look after the kids part-time before they decided to divorce.

Sakura · 02/06/2010 03:13

I'll be very interested to see how he plans to carry out 50% of the care. He'd have to schale down his work for a start, possibly go part-time in another job. Good on him, if he decides to do that. Maybe the divorce has made him take stock of his life.

However, I have seen too many cases where the man insists on having access to the children but then palms the care off onto his mother so he doesn't suffer loss of earnings.

StanHouseMuir · 02/06/2010 08:42

Sakura - again you're making big assumptions. You assume that because the father works full time that he is not fully involved with the childrens lives. If the roles were reversed (due to work restrictions) would you say the same for the mother? Thought not.

Again, you don't know if he has offered to go part-time. You don't know if the family could afford for that to happen. You don't know if his work will permit that, i.e. it's not him being unflexible, but this employer.

I'd assume he sees his children 7 days a week, so I think it natural that a parent would wish to continue seeing their children as much sa possible after any separation.

You may well be correct, but, from the informtion posted by the OP a lot of what you're saying is pure speculation IMO

Sakura · 02/06/2010 08:49

I'm not assuming he's not fully involved in the children's lives.

I'm saying he is not as involved as the OP in the children's lives. By far. She works part-time in order to fit her life around the kids.

Sakura · 02/06/2010 08:52

While it may be natural for a parent to wish to continue seeing their kids as much as possible, you have to think about whats best for the kids here. They need a sense of continuity.

ChocHobNob · 02/06/2010 09:22

My husband has offered to be a SAHD since we had our children, but he can earn more than me, so it turned out I was the SAHM or will work part time in the future and he works full time. He is involved in the children's lives fully, see's them daily and cares for them ... but apparently, because he has more earning potential than me, if we were to split, I have more claim over the children than him?

Yes, continuity is important ... but the children's lives are changing anyway and so now a new "normal" will be set down. If continuity was so important, then perhaps couples should stay together "for the children".

Tanga · 02/06/2010 11:51

It's important that children continue to see their wider family on their father's side, too - plus even if he has the kids 50% of the time, he still has to pay maintenance for them when they are with their mother.

pithyslicker · 02/06/2010 15:09

He'd only have to pay maintainance if they go to court or the CSA. We have a 50/50 split and don't pay each other anything which takes all the animosity out of the situation.

Sakura · 03/06/2010 05:15

So tHe 50/50 split thing does mean he won't have to pay maintenance, even though the OP has given up her paid work to prioritize the children, and has meanwhile aided his career? Surely he knows that not paying maintenance is not in the kids' best interests, only in his? She has lost out on massive earnings because she's prioritized the children.

Perhaps the main problem for me here is that I regard caring for children as an occupation, albeit unpaid.

The H has another occupation, which he has prioritized. I'm just confused as to why suddenly it's now he realises that looking after children is as important as his job.

I'm not saying judging whether he's a hands on father or not; that is a separate issue. Of course he needs to have lots of contact with his kids, but how can he propose on an equal role in their care? And why when mediation was going well, does he now start acting as though the children can be split down the middle?

Sakura · 03/06/2010 05:23

Sorry,　I just genuinely am curious as to how the occupation of child-carer is treated on divorce. If the H can take the kids off the OP in a 50/50 split, then isn't that saying that what she's been doing all this time has not been all that relevant? He can now just take over 50% of her job, just like that? Can she just stroll into his office and do the same?

ChocHobNob · 03/06/2010 08:49

With regards to the comment about 50/50 and not paying maintenance to the mother and maintenance being in the children's best interests ... they will be with him 50% of the time so perhaps he can spend his money on the children themselves. They will benefit from his income, when in their father's care.

It's both of the parents jobs to care for their children. And the crux of it is, it is what is in the child's best interests, not the adults and so if a 50/50 care order could work then the children would probably prefer to see their parents equally following a split that see one parent every other weekend.

cory · 03/06/2010 08:56

Most mothers are the primary care givers in this country for purely practical reasons- because men tend to earn more. This is usually agreed between both parents and fathers do not normally have more of a say in this than mothers. Therefore it does not mean that a man who goes out to work fulltime cares less about his children- or that his coming home at the end of the day and being with them is less important than the mother being with them.

Dh works fulltime, I work parttime. If we were to split up, the children would be just as devastated at not living in the same house as him as they would if living away from me: just because I see them for a few more hours a day doesn't make me a more important parent to them.

arfarfa · 03/06/2010 09:24

Cory, if(God forbid) you split up with your dh, and your dh worked full time from home, and you worked part time outside the home, would you be happy if your dh had primary residency?