DH just joined Families need fathers-any experiences?

[beekeeper2]

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

I think the notion that women take a career hit in order to care for children is viewing things from one perspective. Another perspective is that the other parent working full time supports that parent in their choice. I wanted to be a SAHM for 5 years. I could have worked, and not taken the hit, but I didn't want to. I think it made the day to day running of our lives much easier when our DC were small. But I also know that DH was very relieved that I was working again when the recession hit. And now DH would take a day off work to care for a sick child (or work from home) because he has that flexibility and I don't. He also makes sports days and afternoon plays and assemblies, and I don't.

I agree with cory that in terms of being a parent, it isn't actually the hours. Certainly not once the children are at school anyway I think.

arfarfa Thu 03-Jun-10 09:24:37
"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?"

Of course I would not be happy. But the he wouldn't be happy if I got primary residency- and my feelings don't matter more than his.

The main point is that I could not in honesty tell myself that the loss to the children would be any greater than if I had primary residency. And it's the children that matter.

We would almost certainly aim for a 50/50 split: it's what people do in my culture, where fathers are thought of as very important (as are mothers).

Dh didn't ask to work fulltime for most of their childhood; that was a solution forced on him by financial constraints. He would have been a very competent SAHD but I for one was not happy to accept the lower standard of living that would have entailed.

Those of you who think the father should not have shared residency if he works- do you think a single mother should lose residency if she takes a job to support her dcs? Or does this only apply to men?

Cory - totally agree. If we were to separate we would aim for a 50/50 split. My husband would not be any less devastated than me if one of us got primary residence as he is 100% devoted to our little one.

The thing about a 50:50 split is that it's more about the needs of the adults - and in particular the one who was NOT the primary carer - than the children. As someone said, you can't split children in half. They need stability, especially after a divorce.

If the needs of the children come first, then they would remain with the primary carer still being the primary carer.

Speaking as the child of divorced parents, I am very glad that we stayed living in the same house with our mother and saw my Dad as often as possible. (Very often initially, then tailed off after he met a new woman.)

In our case we are both the primary carer as we both work full-time and share childcare equally

So if the mother works and the Dad is unemployed, they should stay with Dad? Because children only need one full-time parent?

And this stability business - you're saying it is more important for them to stay in the same house? That that outweighs suddenly not seeing a parent for days on end? It's actually much harder work to co-parent equally, emotionally and organisation-wise.

I'm sorry you didn't see much of your own Dad post split - do you think the fact that you no longer lived with him on any level made it more or less likely for him to lose touch with you?

But if we are trying to push men to take a more equal role with the children (and in my experience they are) there isn't Always a primary carer. I know lots of people doing 50/50 and everyone seems to be doing ok. It has to be dealt with on individual cases though.

edam Thu 03-Jun-10 10:53:01
"The thing about a 50:50 split is that it's more about the needs of the adults - and in particular the one who was NOT the primary carer - than the children. As someone said, you can't split children in half. They need stability, especially after a divorce."

No, losing dh would be the worst loss of stability that could possibly happen to my children. Of course it would be our responsibility as adults to make sure we made it as easy for them as possible, by living as close as possible and making all transitions as easy as possible, however painful to us as adults. That is what I would understand by putting the needs of the children before those of the adults. Taking their father away from them and turning him into a semi-stranger would be more about my needs than the children.

Having spent a lot of time in Sweden, where 50/50 is still the norm, I am often amazed to see what lengths parents will go to to put aside their own bitterness in order to keep this working smoothly for the sake of the children.

As for the concept of primary caregiver, surely that only applies until they old enough to be at school- and even in those early days, a father who does the main share in evenings and at weekends doesn't have to be far behind in the caregiving. I am sure my dcs would be stumped if I asked them who was their primary caregiver.

I agree with you totally Cory

Me too

And me.

Not me. I'm with Edam. One thing is the theory, and another one is that humans are not perfect and theories sometimes may not work in practice.

I agree that 50/50 can work wonderfully if the parents communicate well between them, if they can agree to certain rules or expectations that are going to prevail in both houses, if both have the time and the inclination to deal with children issues from homework to soothe them when they come home from school saying they have no friends. If that is the case, bring the 50/50 on.

However, there are always reasons behind the split of the marriage, and in most splits there are certain bitter issues that greatly affect the communication between the parents. Whether we like it or not, plenty of people are not able to fully raise above the problems that ruined the marriage for the sake of the children. So children moving constantly between two environments where there is no communication can and will cause problems to the children. In such cases, it is better for the child to have a base and have regular contact with the other parent.

H and I have been separated for just over 3 months and I didn't consider anything other than 50/50 outside of working hours (I am a SAHM) and it has worked brilliantly for us.

It has forced us to communicate about DS and we're now re-learning how to communicate about other things without getting annoyed / upset at each other.

H and DS (2.4) have a better relationship than ever -although H was around and played with DS a lot they didn't have alone time and it has been brilliant for them.

Just don't dismiss the idea before you've discussed the practicalities. It may be good for everyone!

Chandra, would you be ok with it if you had every other weekend? And your ex was the primary carer? I know I wouldn't.

If it were the best for my child, yes.

tanga - I didn't lose touch with my Dad, not sure why you leap to that assumption. He was just initially very keen to speak to us every day and then got a bit less bothered when he found a new woman.

And no, I don't think being split between his new place and our own home would have been good for us at all. Apart from anything else he had not been the primary carer and didn't know all sorts of stuff about us. He'd worked away from home a lot.

When he later split up from my stepmother, he ended up with residence of my youngest (half) sister. Us older ones (adults by then) had to teach him how to look after a child. He muddled through and eventually worked it out and didn't do such a bad job but it wasn't ideal - only happened because my stepmother had a breakdown. The best option for our little sister would have been to say with a mother who loved her and could provide a stable home but sadly that wasn't possible.

Of course there will always be cases where there is too much bitterness or it doesn't work out for other reasons. I am still amazed at how many of my Swedish friends actually manage this and how all my British friends seem to think it would be impossible. It must be something to do with cultural expectations.

Yes, cultural expectations play a HUGE role in the subject, and to be honest, it doesn't surprise me at all.

Well I'd say 90% of my British separated friends do 50/50 amicably and it seems to work. I was against initially as the primary carer but I tried it and it can work. Our separation could have been very bitter but if both of you put the children first it will work.

I know only one couple doing 50/50 and the boy is not doing well, court has ordered a revision of the arrangement in the next months, all the other ones have alternate weekends plus wednesdays. Which seems, to me, as mostly the rule.

All the adults I know, who were children of separated parents, have said they preferred or would have preferred to have a base and regular visits to the other parent, rather than being moved from one house to another one every few days. This generation of children may think otherwise, who knows?

There was at some point a proposal to enforce a 66/33 contact on separating parents which fell through because research showed it was not so good to make it the rule, as the disregard for particular circumstances was not in the interest of either the child or the parents. I will try to find the article.

Couples need to find out what is best for their children, if 50/50 perfect, if alternate weekends, perfect, if no contact, perfect as well, as long as it all is decided according to the particular needs of the child and circumstances.

cory, I think if both worked full-time then the mother should get residency and mother and father should have shared care.

I think if the mother worked full-time and the father became a SAHD, then it should be split about 60/40 or even 50/50. In my world, pregnancy, carrying a baby and breastfeeding do count for something.

I mean from the child's point of view.

So if you believe a mother who is a SAHM should be the main carer and the father get less contact but a SAHD should have go from being the main carer to then sharing care with the child ... it seems clear to me you don't actually think of it in the childs best interests to stay with the consistency of their main carer, you just seem to think a Mother and her feelings are more important.

And unfortunately that's one of the main problems when a couple split. One parent (normally the Mother) thinking she is more entitled.

Being FORTUNATE enough to be the person who carries a baby, because it isn't a choice, it is an option that is taken away from a man should not then mean that a mother is more important to their child.

"In my world, pregnancy, carrying a baby and breastfeeding do count for something."

But then you are talking about the mother's feeling, aren't you? And didn't we agree that this was to be about the children?

There is absolutely no guarantee that a child of primary school age will feel closer to his mum because she was pregnant and breastfed him: he won't remember that. All he will care about is the relationship he currently has with either parent.

My ds loves us both, but probably feels closer to his father who has always been very involved in his care: I can't imagine that any attempts to tell him that he ought to be closer to me because I was pregnant would go down at all well.

I think if we are going to make it about the mother's feelings, we need to be honest about that and not dress it up as being about the children.