50/50 is terrible for kids! Why does this nonsense persist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

[/quote
Your judgment is neither attractive nor helpful. There are plenty of families who put the work into making a 50/50 schedule a positive experience for their kids. I’d offer that there are some really crappy households where kids are under one roof the entire time, but wish their parents would just split. And there are others whose parents are divorced and who spend most of their time with one parent. They wish they had more time with the other.

[Anonymous]

My ex and I agreed it wouldn't be good for the kids or us. It especially wouldn't work since we were 45 minutes away from each other once divorcing. We worked out our own custody arrangement and have stuck with that. It's worked out, it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

[/quote
Your judgment is neither attractive nor helpful. There are plenty of families who put the work into making a 50/50 schedule a positive experience for their kids. I’d offer that there are some really crappy households where kids are under one roof the entire time, but wish their parents would just split. And there are others whose parents are divorced and who spend most of their time with one parent. They wish they had more time with the other.

We waited 10 years before we had kids. Before we decide to even try, I told DH: You had 10 years to try out marriage. If you want out, now is the time. After kids, there is no divorce. Your only way out is death! So he knew what he was getting into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

I think only married people advocate for this. I am married, but if I ever got divorced, no way would I agree to this. The best part of being divorced would be not having to deal with your ex’s stuff and their mess - taking turns in the same house means that there’s still a million reasons to fight, with no clean break. It’s the worst of both worlds; all the hassles of living together with none of the benefits. If you can make this work; you should just stay married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

I think only married people advocate for this. I am married, but if I ever got divorced, no way would I agree to this. The best part of being divorced would be not having to deal with your ex’s stuff and their mess - taking turns in the same house means that there’s still a million reasons to fight, with no clean break. It’s the worst of both worlds; all the hassles of living together with none of the benefits. If you can make this work; you should just stay married.

+1. Nearing (where the kids stay in the house and the parents shuffle in and out) is particularly destructive when the divorce is due to abuse or infidelity. There has to be a high degree of trust and reliability for nesting to work, and trust and reliability are often (but not always) broken in the lead up to divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

I think only married people advocate for this. I am married, but if I ever got divorced, no way would I agree to this. The best part of being divorced would be not having to deal with your ex’s stuff and their mess - taking turns in the same house means that there’s still a million reasons to fight, with no clean break. It’s the worst of both worlds; all the hassles of living together with none of the benefits. If you can make this work; you should just stay married.

100 Agree. Shuffling parents doesn’t work. I couldn’t think of anything worse for both myself, my ex and my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP what is the alternative?

One home during the week and school year.

Other home during some weekends and summer.

50 -50 is for the guilty parents. If the parents cared at all about the kids they wouldn't put them through 50-50.

I'm a teacher, I see a lot of families.

What you propose, uprooting the child and going somewhere new for the summer is one of the worst arrangements. I can't imagine someone thinking it's better than 50/50.

The kids I see who have 50/50 generally do quite well.

[Anonymous]

My kids (teens) MUCH prefer 50/50 and switching every 2 weeks rather than going to dad's every other weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

The kids will be fine if the parents are civil. No need to have 3 households to protect the kids sensitivities.

[Anonymous]

The ability to self-style custodial outcomes really really depends on the parents. Some parents are able to work something out because they prioritize the needs of the kids. Some parents prioritize themselves.
Who was it that said each marriage is its own country? It's very accurate - the personalities, the finances, temperament, collaborativeness, the needs of the children... none of it is prescriptive of the marital institution. That's why if possible, it is usually best for parents, WHO CAN AMICABLY DO SO, to carve out what is best for the children.

The courts don't know Larlo and Larla's every personal petty issue and sure as hell don't have time for that so just use the equality format of 50/50 and say "next". If Larlo and Larla can't figure it out, and don't like the court's format, they will spend a pretty penny fighting every stupid little minute of custody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

I think only married people advocate for this. I am married, but if I ever got divorced, no way would I agree to this. The best part of being divorced would be not having to deal with your ex’s stuff and their mess - taking turns in the same house means that there’s still a million reasons to fight, with no clean break. It’s the worst of both worlds; all the hassles of living together with none of the benefits. If you can make this work; you should just stay married.

100 Agree. Shuffling parents doesn’t work. I couldn’t think of anything worse for both myself, my ex and my kids.

How about parents each have half a duplex? Kids float between the two sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

Do you think divorce is “selfish”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

Don’t throw stones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

I think only married people advocate for this. I am married, but if I ever got divorced, no way would I agree to this. The best part of being divorced would be not having to deal with your ex’s stuff and their mess - taking turns in the same house means that there’s still a million reasons to fight, with no clean break. It’s the worst of both worlds; all the hassles of living together with none of the benefits. If you can make this work; you should just stay married.

100 Agree. Shuffling parents doesn’t work. I couldn’t think of anything worse for both myself, my ex and my kids.

How about parents each have half a duplex? Kids float between the two sides.

Why though? This is dumb unless the exes want to be up in each other's business, including dating partners not to mention the kids seeing their comings and goings.

Kids are resilient. They can handle going to 2 homes.