Red flag if a guy doesn’t see kids often?

[Anonymous]

If he's so busy to even see his kids, how would he have time to date you? Because he's putting his kids last and dating second. No thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't have time to spend with his kids but he has time to date?

Yeah, no.

+1

Exactly this. Nope. Run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I got a divorce because my ex was a workaholic and did no parenting. If you're ok with that go for it.

Me too.

He Disney dads it during his weekends or summer weeks. Just like he did when we all lived together.

Just the other day he paid our 8 yo daughter $20 just for playing five mins of basketball with him or for him. Not for chores, or good grades, or doing well at the track meet. Money for hanging out with him!

What parenting lesson is that? Hangout with a fat man and get paid money?!

Btw the other daughter was inside and was pissed.

I got to deal with all of that the next day when I was like where’d you get this $30 bill you’re taking to school to blow on candy?

Then handle the whole value if a dollar conversation again, plus Dad bribing you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives”

OP says that he doesn’t have time to see his kids. You can have a custody schedule that honors the kids needs to stay at the other parent’s home and still see your kids multiple times per week. Take them to and from practice, attending sporting and school events, taking them to dinner, doing homework with them, etc. This guy doesn’t want to put in the effort. He’s a deadbeat dad.

A deadbeat dad literally mean a dad who doesn’t pay child support. You gave no idea whether he is or isn’t paying child support.

Personally, I don’t think it’s beneficial to kids to have their dad pick them up from sports practice when they live with their mom. It’s confusing and anxiety inducing to bounce around from parent to parent, not knowing which one will be there. I think it’s kinder to take a step back and I say this as a child of divorce. I’m glad I only saw my dad in the summers. It made my life easier. He wasn’t a deadbeat at all. He was someone who respected my stability.

It made your life easier because your mom didn't want him involved. Lets be real. Seeing him a few weeks in the summer isn't a relationship and stability would have been both parents equally involved.

I think her parents did the right thing. It is more stable for the kid. I would love that setup.

You love the set up as it would benefit you. That's pathetic.

It benefits the kids. Stability and routine is better.

Not Think that scenario would benefit me because I would have even less time than I already do.

I do get child support so I don’t know if you were thinking there would be some financial benefit because with equal earners that’s not the case.

I nest so I don’t inconvenience the kids. I am doing most of the parenting.

50/50 Custody is BS and terrible for kids. It puts the parents first and not the kids.

There would be no personal benefit of me having the kids most of the time: it would benefit the kids immensely.

50-50 custody has Stability and routine too … the talk of “bouncing around” is as if the kids don’t know what’s going to happen next … like a schedule is whimsical or something. Maybe some situations happen like this if parents aren’t consistent.

I have done it that way. It sucks. One main house is best for the kids. Nesting now and doing more than 50% of parenting. The 50/50 two houses was not as stable at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives”

OP says that he doesn’t have time to see his kids. You can have a custody schedule that honors the kids needs to stay at the other parent’s home and still see your kids multiple times per week. Take them to and from practice, attending sporting and school events, taking them to dinner, doing homework with them, etc. This guy doesn’t want to put in the effort. He’s a deadbeat dad.

A deadbeat dad literally mean a dad who doesn’t pay child support. You gave no idea whether he is or isn’t paying child support.

Personally, I don’t think it’s beneficial to kids to have their dad pick them up from sports practice when they live with their mom. It’s confusing and anxiety inducing to bounce around from parent to parent, not knowing which one will be there. I think it’s kinder to take a step back and I say this as a child of divorce. I’m glad I only saw my dad in the summers. It made my life easier. He wasn’t a deadbeat at all. He was someone who respected my stability.

It made your life easier because your mom didn't want him involved. Lets be real. Seeing him a few weeks in the summer isn't a relationship and stability would have been both parents equally involved.

I think her parents did the right thing. It is more stable for the kid. I would love that setup.

You love the set up as it would benefit you. That's pathetic.

It benefits the kids. Stability and routine is better.

Not Think that scenario would benefit me because I would have even less time than I already do.

I do get child support so I don’t know if you were thinking there would be some financial benefit because with equal earners that’s not the case.

I nest so I don’t inconvenience the kids. I am doing most of the parenting.

50/50 Custody is BS and terrible for kids. It puts the parents first and not the kids.

There would be no personal benefit of me having the kids most of the time: it would benefit the kids immensely.

50-50 custody has Stability and routine too … the talk of “bouncing around” is as if the kids don’t know what’s going to happen next … like a schedule is whimsical or something. Maybe some situations happen like this if parents aren’t consistent.

I have done it that way. It sucks. One main house is best for the kids. Nesting now and doing more than 50% of parenting. The 50/50 two houses was not as stable at all.

Of corse its sable. If you don’t think so, you give up the kids and be the every other weekend parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives”

OP says that he doesn’t have time to see his kids. You can have a custody schedule that honors the kids needs to stay at the other parent’s home and still see your kids multiple times per week. Take them to and from practice, attending sporting and school events, taking them to dinner, doing homework with them, etc. This guy doesn’t want to put in the effort. He’s a deadbeat dad.

A deadbeat dad literally mean a dad who doesn’t pay child support. You gave no idea whether he is or isn’t paying child support.

Personally, I don’t think it’s beneficial to kids to have their dad pick them up from sports practice when they live with their mom. It’s confusing and anxiety inducing to bounce around from parent to parent, not knowing which one will be there. I think it’s kinder to take a step back and I say this as a child of divorce. I’m glad I only saw my dad in the summers. It made my life easier. He wasn’t a deadbeat at all. He was someone who respected my stability.

It made your life easier because your mom didn't want him involved. Lets be real. Seeing him a few weeks in the summer isn't a relationship and stability would have been both parents equally involved.

I think her parents did the right thing. It is more stable for the kid. I would love that setup.

You love the set up as it would benefit you. That's pathetic.

It benefits the kids. Stability and routine is better.

Not Think that scenario would benefit me because I would have even less time than I already do.

I do get child support so I don’t know if you were thinking there would be some financial benefit because with equal earners that’s not the case.

I nest so I don’t inconvenience the kids. I am doing most of the parenting.

50/50 Custody is BS and terrible for kids. It puts the parents first and not the kids.

There would be no personal benefit of me having the kids most of the time: it would benefit the kids immensely.

50-50 custody has Stability and routine too … the talk of “bouncing around” is as if the kids don’t know what’s going to happen next … like a schedule is whimsical or something. Maybe some situations happen like this if parents aren’t consistent.

I have done it that way. It sucks. One main house is best for the kids. Nesting now and doing more than 50% of parenting. The 50/50 two houses was not as stable at all.

Of corse its sable. If you don’t think so, you give up the kids and be the every other weekend parent.

No. It is not. It is better for the kids to be in one place. I have done both. You haven't. And there is no such thing is 50/50 parenting. One parent always does more. I am that one. 50/50 only benefits parents financially. It is horrible for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives”

OP says that he doesn’t have time to see his kids. You can have a custody schedule that honors the kids needs to stay at the other parent’s home and still see your kids multiple times per week. Take them to and from practice, attending sporting and school events, taking them to dinner, doing homework with them, etc. This guy doesn’t want to put in the effort. He’s a deadbeat dad.

A deadbeat dad literally mean a dad who doesn’t pay child support. You gave no idea whether he is or isn’t paying child support.

Personally, I don’t think it’s beneficial to kids to have their dad pick them up from sports practice when they live with their mom. It’s confusing and anxiety inducing to bounce around from parent to parent, not knowing which one will be there. I think it’s kinder to take a step back and I say this as a child of divorce. I’m glad I only saw my dad in the summers. It made my life easier. He wasn’t a deadbeat at all. He was someone who respected my stability.

It made your life easier because your mom didn't want him involved. Lets be real. Seeing him a few weeks in the summer isn't a relationship and stability would have been both parents equally involved.

I think her parents did the right thing. It is more stable for the kid. I would love that setup.

You love the set up as it would benefit you. That's pathetic.

It benefits the kids. Stability and routine is better.

Not Think that scenario would benefit me because I would have even less time than I already do.

I do get child support so I don’t know if you were thinking there would be some financial benefit because with equal earners that’s not the case.

I nest so I don’t inconvenience the kids. I am doing most of the parenting.

50/50 Custody is BS and terrible for kids. It puts the parents first and not the kids.

There would be no personal benefit of me having the kids most of the time: it would benefit the kids immensely.

50-50 custody has Stability and routine too … the talk of “bouncing around” is as if the kids don’t know what’s going to happen next … like a schedule is whimsical or something. Maybe some situations happen like this if parents aren’t consistent.

I have done it that way. It sucks. One main house is best for the kids. Nesting now and doing more than 50% of parenting. The 50/50 two houses was not as stable at all.

Of corse its sable. If you don’t think so, you give up the kids and be the every other weekend parent.

No. It is not. It is better for the kids to be in one place. I have done both. You haven't. And there is no such thing is 50/50 parenting. One parent always does more. I am that one. 50/50 only benefits parents financially. It is horrible for kids.

I was a kid with "primary parent" and "parent I hardly ever got to see" and I thought that was horrible for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives”

OP says that he doesn’t have time to see his kids. You can have a custody schedule that honors the kids needs to stay at the other parent’s home and still see your kids multiple times per week. Take them to and from practice, attending sporting and school events, taking them to dinner, doing homework with them, etc. This guy doesn’t want to put in the effort. He’s a deadbeat dad.

A deadbeat dad literally mean a dad who doesn’t pay child support. You gave no idea whether he is or isn’t paying child support.

Personally, I don’t think it’s beneficial to kids to have their dad pick them up from sports practice when they live with their mom. It’s confusing and anxiety inducing to bounce around from parent to parent, not knowing which one will be there. I think it’s kinder to take a step back and I say this as a child of divorce. I’m glad I only saw my dad in the summers. It made my life easier. He wasn’t a deadbeat at all. He was someone who respected my stability.

It made your life easier because your mom didn't want him involved. Lets be real. Seeing him a few weeks in the summer isn't a relationship and stability would have been both parents equally involved.

I think her parents did the right thing. It is more stable for the kid. I would love that setup.

You love the set up as it would benefit you. That's pathetic.

It benefits the kids. Stability and routine is better.

Not Think that scenario would benefit me because I would have even less time than I already do.

I do get child support so I don’t know if you were thinking there would be some financial benefit because with equal earners that’s not the case.

I nest so I don’t inconvenience the kids. I am doing most of the parenting.

50/50 Custody is BS and terrible for kids. It puts the parents first and not the kids.

There would be no personal benefit of me having the kids most of the time: it would benefit the kids immensely.

50-50 custody has Stability and routine too … the talk of “bouncing around” is as if the kids don’t know what’s going to happen next … like a schedule is whimsical or something. Maybe some situations happen like this if parents aren’t consistent.

I have done it that way. It sucks. One main house is best for the kids. Nesting now and doing more than 50% of parenting. The 50/50 two houses was not as stable at all.

Of corse its sable. If you don’t think so, you give up the kids and be the every other weekend parent.

No. It is not. It is better for the kids to be in one place. I have done both. You haven't. And there is no such thing is 50/50 parenting. One parent always does more. I am that one. 50/50 only benefits parents financially. It is horrible for kids.

I was a kid with "primary parent" and "parent I hardly ever got to see" and I thought that was horrible for me.

Did you read? I am bird nesting...but still doing the primary parenting (kids stay in one house; parents change but I am doing 70% although we have 50/50 custody technically). I have done it both ways. Kids see both parents. They agree one house for them is just easier. They don't care which of us is there but I am the one there most of the time.

I do not get child support regardless.

My parents were married. I never saw my dad. It was fine. I much preferred having a stable house than having to deal with an absent parent half the time if my parents ever divorced. 50-50 then wasn't a thing thank god. If we were truly 50-50 now, they would be getting an absent parent half the time and the constant logistics coordination being pure hell. We did that. No one liked it.

I have to nest because of the 50-50 nonsense. I would rather be the only person in the house and have them 70% of the time because I am doing most of the parenting anyway. But because of 50-50 bs, and don't want to go return to switching houses, I have to do this stupid work around to get stability for the kids.

You haven't experienced the logistical difficulty of two households. It is hard on both parents and kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives”

OP says that he doesn’t have time to see his kids. You can have a custody schedule that honors the kids needs to stay at the other parent’s home and still see your kids multiple times per week. Take them to and from practice, attending sporting and school events, taking them to dinner, doing homework with them, etc. This guy doesn’t want to put in the effort. He’s a deadbeat dad.

A deadbeat dad literally mean a dad who doesn’t pay child support. You gave no idea whether he is or isn’t paying child support.

Personally, I don’t think it’s beneficial to kids to have their dad pick them up from sports practice when they live with their mom. It’s confusing and anxiety inducing to bounce around from parent to parent, not knowing which one will be there. I think it’s kinder to take a step back and I say this as a child of divorce. I’m glad I only saw my dad in the summers. It made my life easier. He wasn’t a deadbeat at all. He was someone who respected my stability.

It made your life easier because your mom didn't want him involved. Lets be real. Seeing him a few weeks in the summer isn't a relationship and stability would have been both parents equally involved.

I think her parents did the right thing. It is more stable for the kid. I would love that setup.

You love the set up as it would benefit you. That's pathetic.

It benefits the kids. Stability and routine is better.

Not Think that scenario would benefit me because I would have even less time than I already do.

I do get child support so I don’t know if you were thinking there would be some financial benefit because with equal earners that’s not the case.

I nest so I don’t inconvenience the kids. I am doing most of the parenting.

50/50 Custody is BS and terrible for kids. It puts the parents first and not the kids.

There would be no personal benefit of me having the kids most of the time: it would benefit the kids immensely.

50-50 custody has Stability and routine too … the talk of “bouncing around” is as if the kids don’t know what’s going to happen next … like a schedule is whimsical or something. Maybe some situations happen like this if parents aren’t consistent.

I have done it that way. It sucks. One main house is best for the kids. Nesting now and doing more than 50% of parenting. The 50/50 two houses was not as stable at all.

Of corse its sable. If you don’t think so, you give up the kids and be the every other weekend parent.

No. It is not. It is better for the kids to be in one place. I have done both. You haven't. And there is no such thing is 50/50 parenting. One parent always does more. I am that one. 50/50 only benefits parents financially. It is horrible for kids.

I was a kid with "primary parent" and "parent I hardly ever got to see" and I thought that was horrible for me.

Did you read? I am bird nesting...but still doing the primary parenting (kids stay in one house; parents change but I am doing 70% although we have 50/50 custody technically). I have done it both ways. Kids see both parents. They agree one house for them is just easier. They don't care which of us is there but I am the one there most of the time.

I do not get child support regardless.

My parents were married. I never saw my dad. It was fine. I much preferred having a stable house than having to deal with an absent parent half the time if my parents ever divorced. 50-50 then wasn't a thing thank god. If we were truly 50-50 now, they would be getting an absent parent half the time and the constant logistics coordination being pure hell. We did that. No one liked it.

I have to nest because of the 50-50 nonsense. I would rather be the only person in the house and have them 70% of the time because I am doing most of the parenting anyway. But because of 50-50 bs, and don't want to go return to switching houses, I have to do this stupid work around to get stability for the kids.

You haven't experienced the logistical difficulty of two households. It is hard on both parents and kids.

Have them go live with dad and you can see them occasionally for a few hours. You are really selfish and hurting your kids.

Maybe if you had a better relationship with your dad you would have picked a better husband assuming you blame him for the divorce and your kids would have both their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives.

Personally, I think a man who demands 50-50 custody to avoid child support while his new girlfriend or mother watch the kids is that sort to run from.

But I also think 50-50 custody is a legal travesty.

100% agree. And I am divorced.

If I were in that situation I would do everything in my power to live down the street and/or come by for dinner several times a week. Pick up. Babysit. Whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives”

OP says that he doesn’t have time to see his kids. You can have a custody schedule that honors the kids needs to stay at the other parent’s home and still see your kids multiple times per week. Take them to and from practice, attending sporting and school events, taking them to dinner, doing homework with them, etc. This guy doesn’t want to put in the effort. He’s a deadbeat dad.

A deadbeat dad literally mean a dad who doesn’t pay child support. You gave no idea whether he is or isn’t paying child support.

Personally, I don’t think it’s beneficial to kids to have their dad pick them up from sports practice when they live with their mom. It’s confusing and anxiety inducing to bounce around from parent to parent, not knowing which one will be there. I think it’s kinder to take a step back and I say this as a child of divorce. I’m glad I only saw my dad in the summers. It made my life easier. He wasn’t a deadbeat at all. He was someone who respected my stability.

It made your life easier because your mom didn't want him involved. Lets be real. Seeing him a few weeks in the summer isn't a relationship and stability would have been both parents equally involved.

I think her parents did the right thing. It is more stable for the kid. I would love that setup.

You love the set up as it would benefit you. That's pathetic.

It benefits the kids. Stability and routine is better.

Not Think that scenario would benefit me because I would have even less time than I already do.

I do get child support so I don’t know if you were thinking there would be some financial benefit because with equal earners that’s not the case.

I nest so I don’t inconvenience the kids. I am doing most of the parenting.

50/50 Custody is BS and terrible for kids. It puts the parents first and not the kids.

There would be no personal benefit of me having the kids most of the time: it would benefit the kids immensely.

50-50 custody has Stability and routine too … the talk of “bouncing around” is as if the kids don’t know what’s going to happen next … like a schedule is whimsical or something. Maybe some situations happen like this if parents aren’t consistent.

I have done it that way. It sucks. One main house is best for the kids. Nesting now and doing more than 50% of parenting. The 50/50 two houses was not as stable at all.

Of corse its sable. If you don’t think so, you give up the kids and be the every other weekend parent.

No. It is not. It is better for the kids to be in one place. I have done both. You haven't. And there is no such thing is 50/50 parenting. One parent always does more. I am that one. 50/50 only benefits parents financially. It is horrible for kids.

I was a kid with "primary parent" and "parent I hardly ever got to see" and I thought that was horrible for me.

Did you read? I am bird nesting...but still doing the primary parenting (kids stay in one house; parents change but I am doing 70% although we have 50/50 custody technically). I have done it both ways. Kids see both parents. They agree one house for them is just easier. They don't care which of us is there but I am the one there most of the time.

I do not get child support regardless.

My parents were married. I never saw my dad. It was fine. I much preferred having a stable house than having to deal with an absent parent half the time if my parents ever divorced. 50-50 then wasn't a thing thank god. If we were truly 50-50 now, they would be getting an absent parent half the time and the constant logistics coordination being pure hell. We did that. No one liked it.

I have to nest because of the 50-50 nonsense. I would rather be the only person in the house and have them 70% of the time because I am doing most of the parenting anyway. But because of 50-50 bs, and don't want to go return to switching houses, I have to do this stupid work around to get stability for the kids.

You haven't experienced the logistical difficulty of two households. It is hard on both parents and kids.

Have them go live with dad and you can see them occasionally for a few hours. You are really selfish and hurting your kids.

Maybe if you had a better relationship with your dad you would have picked a better husband assuming you blame him for the divorce and your kids would have both their parents.

PP is disregarding how her childhood growing up with a shitty deadbeat parent has clearly affected her adult life, views on parenting and marriage. Quite disturbing how little self awareness she has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it a red flag if a guy is separated but doesn’t seem to see his kids often? He says he works too much to have 50-50 custody. Kids are a tween and teens.

How much is not often?

I don't think 50/50 is always the solution. I know families for whom 50/50 works great, and families where something else is better.

But there's a difference between a parent who sees their kids for a few weekends a month, and dinner once a week in between, and a parent who see their kids a few times a year.

[Anonymous]

Not having time for your kids is a major character flaw. If he treats his own children as an afterthought his do you think he will treat you? Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It might just mean his kids are well adjusted with mom and are very busy doing after school activities and that he doesn’t want to uproot their lives”

OP says that he doesn’t have time to see his kids. You can have a custody schedule that honors the kids needs to stay at the other parent’s home and still see your kids multiple times per week. Take them to and from practice, attending sporting and school events, taking them to dinner, doing homework with them, etc. This guy doesn’t want to put in the effort. He’s a deadbeat dad.

A deadbeat dad literally mean a dad who doesn’t pay child support. You gave no idea whether he is or isn’t paying child support.

Personally, I don’t think it’s beneficial to kids to have their dad pick them up from sports practice when they live with their mom. It’s confusing and anxiety inducing to bounce around from parent to parent, not knowing which one will be there. I think it’s kinder to take a step back and I say this as a child of divorce. I’m glad I only saw my dad in the summers. It made my life easier. He wasn’t a deadbeat at all. He was someone who respected my stability.

It made your life easier because your mom didn't want him involved. Lets be real. Seeing him a few weeks in the summer isn't a relationship and stability would have been both parents equally involved.

I think her parents did the right thing. It is more stable for the kid. I would love that setup.

You love the set up as it would benefit you. That's pathetic.

It benefits the kids. Stability and routine is better.

Not Think that scenario would benefit me because I would have even less time than I already do.

I do get child support so I don’t know if you were thinking there would be some financial benefit because with equal earners that’s not the case.

I nest so I don’t inconvenience the kids. I am doing most of the parenting.

50/50 Custody is BS and terrible for kids. It puts the parents first and not the kids.

There would be no personal benefit of me having the kids most of the time: it would benefit the kids immensely.

50-50 custody has Stability and routine too … the talk of “bouncing around” is as if the kids don’t know what’s going to happen next … like a schedule is whimsical or something. Maybe some situations happen like this if parents aren’t consistent.

I have done it that way. It sucks. One main house is best for the kids. Nesting now and doing more than 50% of parenting. The 50/50 two houses was not as stable at all.

Of corse its sable. If you don’t think so, you give up the kids and be the every other weekend parent.

No. It is not. It is better for the kids to be in one place. I have done both. You haven't. And there is no such thing is 50/50 parenting. One parent always does more. I am that one. 50/50 only benefits parents financially. It is horrible for kids.

I was a kid with "primary parent" and "parent I hardly ever got to see" and I thought that was horrible for me.

Did you read? I am bird nesting...but still doing the primary parenting (kids stay in one house; parents change but I am doing 70% although we have 50/50 custody technically). I have done it both ways. Kids see both parents. They agree one house for them is just easier. They don't care which of us is there but I am the one there most of the time.

Yeah I read the part where you said "there is no such thing is 50/50 parenting. One parent always does more. I am that one. 50/50 only benefits parents financially. It is horrible for kids." And I completely disagree with this blanket statement.

Furthermore you are totally missing the point about why 50/50 is better than primary parent/non-primary parent. You think the problem is going back and forth between houses. That's not the problem. The problem is rarely seeing one of your parents. And this is what is happening to your kids. They may tell you they like it but you can never know for sure if it's true, because as a matter of survival kids will tell you what they think you want to hear.


My parents were married. I never saw my dad. It was fine.

That was not the case for me, it was the furthest thing from "fine".

I much preferred having a stable house than having to deal with an absent parent half the time if my parents ever divorced. 50-50 then wasn't a thing thank god. If we were truly 50-50 now, they would be getting an absent parent half the time and the constant logistics coordination being pure hell. We did that. No one liked it.

One parent 70 another parent 30 is not better than 50/50, sorry.

I have to nest because of the 50-50 nonsense. I would rather be the only person in the house and have them 70% of the time because I am doing most of the parenting anyway.

Yes, this is very clearly all about you.

But because of 50-50 bs, and don't want to go return to switching houses, I have to do this stupid work around to get stability for the kids.

Not seeing their father 70% of the time is not "stability". It is convenience for you. And probably "victory" over the man you hate at the expense of your kids.

You haven't experienced the logistical difficulty of two households. It is hard on both parents and kids.

I'm doing it right now you insufferable creature.

Furthermore "nesting" creates its own logistical difficulties and expense that you are completely glossing over. "Nesting" simply is not practical in the majority of cases, in addition to being deeply weird.

[Anonymous]

I am a DW with 50-50 custody and cannot imagine for a second still sharing a house with my XH and having to continue being co-owners / co-habitants (even if not at the same time) of the same house in addition to co-parenting. I divorced him because I no longer wanted to share domestic duties in addition to everything else.

I do also think it’s weird to be treating kids as particularly fragile beings who need to stay in one spot while the adults rotate around them …