50/50 custody in practice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women love to complain that's all. You may be a dad that does all these things and guess what the wife or ex wife will push the goal post. Women thrive in complaining about this. Men today are very different from their dad's. Many contribute equally and yet it's never enough....

You're projecting. Many women would be grateful for a husband or coparent who contributes equally, or at minimum, who isn't a liability to their kids. Many men might say the same thing. The issue here is about one parent who is contemplating stepping back as that person believe it is in their kids' best interest to have a primary home. This is a reasonable assumption in certain circumstances, especially if the kids are teenagers and the coparent is on board with taking the more active role. In some cases, it may be better than one parent moving 30 + minutes away, demanding 50/50 custody without regard to how the kids feel about it, and taking away the kids activities and social support system for 50% of their lives.

No. Kids need both parents. And it's always women who think the man should step back because "kids need moms more than they need dads". No doubt it's a coincidence that more custody for them also means more money for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will briefly share my experience. From 13 to 18 I lived the 50/50 crap. Yes it's crap. I am thankful my parents tried. They did their best. But I am not sure either of them had my best interest in mind.Many people previously said kids have both set of clothes etc in 2 different homes etc. and guess what it still sucks. Eventually when I was 17 I just moved full time to my dad's house. Going back and forth between homes sucks. And my parents lived only 3 miles apart. They were not ones who had to constantly switch homes; I was the one who had to do that. And when my mom got a boyfriend and the dude moved in, it gave me the perfect excuse to go live with my dad. Too bad it happened only 1 year before I moved out and went to college. I wished it happened sooner. My dad actually took me to all my games; travelled with me for games; etc. it would have been much easier if I had just stayed with him. When I was 14 I told my mom I wanted to stay with my dad but she went crazy and called me ungrateful...

My experience - my mom hated my dad and denied him access to us, and that was awful. I would gladly have done 50/50. She wasn't even doing it from our supposed best interests, but simply to punish him.

Divorce is going to suck for the kids no matter what, you just have to do your best to prevent their life from getting completely derailed.

[Anonymous]

My mother made 50/50 a living hell for me and my brother. Early on she would have been much happier giving my father 100% because she really didn’t like being a mother. She never had time for us for things like getting us to practices or other events so my father would often come to the rescue which got her mad. She was the reason behind the divorce and her need for male companionship was constant. It finally came to a head when she left us alone for two days when we were 12 and 10 and we called our dad. We packed up just about everything we had and moved in with him full time. He called the police to report what had happened and eventually he got full custody. Thankfully the 50/50 only lasted a few months. My dad was great and our lives after that were very calm and maybe even normal. It’s too bad there is no easy way to determine who the better parent would be and give them 100% with some visitation rights. Strangely, my mother became a nicer person when she no longer was a mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women love to complain that's all. You may be a dad that does all these things and guess what the wife or ex wife will push the goal post. Women thrive in complaining about this. Men today are very different from their dad's. Many contribute equally and yet it's never enough....

You're projecting. Many women would be grateful for a husband or coparent who contributes equally, or at minimum, who isn't a liability to their kids. Many men might say the same thing. The issue here is about one parent who is contemplating stepping back as that person believe it is in their kids' best interest to have a primary home. This is a reasonable assumption in certain circumstances, especially if the kids are teenagers and the coparent is on board with taking the more active role. In some cases, it may be better than one parent moving 30 + minutes away, demanding 50/50 custody without regard to how the kids feel about it, and taking away the kids activities and social support system for 50% of their lives.

No. Kids need both parents. And it's always women who think the man should step back because "kids need moms more than they need dads". No doubt it's a coincidence that more custody for them also means more money for them.

The argument isn't that kids need one specific parent more than the other. The argument is that if one parent 30+ minutes from the kids' school, friends and activities and is also unwilling to drive the kids to birthday parties and social events, then the parent should think hard before demanding 50/50 custody. This argument doesn't apply to two divorced people who live 5 minutes apart and both are supportive of the kids' interests and friendships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in divorce mediation, and we agree to 50/50 custody. But how does it work in practice if you do not want your children living out of a suitcase? Ex wife will be staying in the district and honestly it is kind of ridiculous to have to drag our kids in and out of the district either some days a week or every other week etc. So, this makes me think that the 50/50 custody that everyone talks about is only practical if both parents are in the same school district, otherwise the kids will suffer with the commute. My ex is staying in the house. I cannot afford to live in the district. As much as I want to see my kids more often, I may have to make some sacrifices and have them just weekends to spare them unnecessary travel.

If you choose to not prioritize your children, go for it. But don’t pretend you are doing it for them. Lots of people make this work. You just don’t care enough.

He makes good and valid points. He is saying that he would prefer his kids to be primarily in one home. In my opinion, that is reasonable. Those who claim to make it work think it works and perhaps it does. Only their adult children can tell us ....

He is choosing to live in a different city than his children. That sickens me.

Ever consider he has to pay child support, alimony and extra's and he cannot afford to live in the area, especially if he gave her the house?

Firstly you cannot “give” a marital asset.

He needs to rent for awhile. Parenting involves sacrifice. His ex clearly has to figure out how to make mortgage payments on a house in a desirable area so she’s making sacrifices too. You don’t get to opt out of parenting because you’re already doing the bare minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not give up being a parent so she can stay in the house. You need to live near each other to effectively coparent and to be actively involved in your kids day to day lives (regardless of where they sleep). That often means not keeping the house if the other parent can afford a similar standard of living nearby.

Kids resent the every other weekend parent. It takes them way from their home, community, friends, and activities. The weekend parent's place isn't home or comfortable for them and typically the come less and less.

Friends of mine moved less a few minutes away from each other. They have let the kids decide where they want to sleep. They have a very flexible split of dinners / evenings but the kids sleep at whatever house they want. They have a schedule but it isn't fixed. Both kids are in sports so typically every weekend one parent takes one and the other parent takes the other as they have tournaments and all day meets. It all only works because they live very close together and the kids an bike between houses. It works out to close to 50/50 of awake hours but probably more over a month

I know a situation where this worked out like you described until the dad remarried, then cooperation around extracurriculars deteriorated because the new wife resented that her husband spent all weekend at kids' activities, then he moved because his new wife felt like the old wife was everywhere and she wanted a home that felt like her own and a fresh start, then they had a child together and everything truly blew up for the first set up kids.

That is unfortunate. My friend's situation did deteriorate for a couple years when her ex was in a relationship with someone who didn't like the flexibility of their arrangement or the amount of time he spent parenting and created some issues. Thankfully that relationship didn't end up being too long term. Now both my friend and her ex husband are remarried and the four of them get along great. They do birthdays and celebrations all together as one big family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in divorce mediation, and we agree to 50/50 custody. But how does it work in practice if you do not want your children living out of a suitcase? Ex wife will be staying in the district and honestly it is kind of ridiculous to have to drag our kids in and out of the district either some days a week or every other week etc. So, this makes me think that the 50/50 custody that everyone talks about is only practical if both parents are in the same school district, otherwise the kids will suffer with the commute. My ex is staying in the house. I cannot afford to live in the district. As much as I want to see my kids more often, I may have to make some sacrifices and have them just weekends to spare them unnecessary travel.

If you choose to not prioritize your children, go for it. But don’t pretend you are doing it for them. Lots of people make this work. You just don’t care enough.

He makes good and valid points. He is saying that he would prefer his kids to be primarily in one home. In my opinion, that is reasonable. Those who claim to make it work think it works and perhaps it does. Only their adult children can tell us ....

He is choosing to live in a different city than his children. That sickens me.

Ever consider he has to pay child support, alimony and extra's and he cannot afford to live in the area, especially if he gave her the house?

Firstly you cannot “give” a marital asset.

He needs to rent for awhile. Parenting involves sacrifice. His ex clearly has to figure out how to make mortgage payments on a house in a desirable area so she’s making sacrifices too. You don’t get to opt out of parenting because you’re already doing the bare minimum.

His ex makes the payment through child dupport and alimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in divorce mediation, and we agree to 50/50 custody. But how does it work in practice if you do not want your children living out of a suitcase? Ex wife will be staying in the district and honestly it is kind of ridiculous to have to drag our kids in and out of the district either some days a week or every other week etc. So, this makes me think that the 50/50 custody that everyone talks about is only practical if both parents are in the same school district, otherwise the kids will suffer with the commute. My ex is staying in the house. I cannot afford to live in the district. As much as I want to see my kids more often, I may have to make some sacrifices and have them just weekends to spare them unnecessary travel.

If you choose to not prioritize your children, go for it. But don’t pretend you are doing it for them. Lots of people make this work. You just don’t care enough.

He makes good and valid points. He is saying that he would prefer his kids to be primarily in one home. In my opinion, that is reasonable. Those who claim to make it work think it works and perhaps it does. Only their adult children can tell us ....

He is choosing to live in a different city than his children. That sickens me.

Ever consider he has to pay child support, alimony and extra's and he cannot afford to live in the area, especially if he gave her the house?

Firstly you cannot “give” a marital asset.

He needs to rent for awhile. Parenting involves sacrifice. His ex clearly has to figure out how to make mortgage payments on a house in a desirable area so she’s making sacrifices too. You don’t get to opt out of parenting because you’re already doing the bare minimum.

His ex makes the payment through child dupport and alimony.

In which case she’s working to put food on the table if she’s using alimony and child support for mortgage payments. Neither of you are as well off as you were married— that’s the breaks of divorce.

So if he wants to be a parent he rents a place nearby. If he doesn’t he needs to pay CS accordingly.