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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The pendulum has swung way too far. 50/50 makes kids into chattel who have to shuffle their lives between multiple homes.

Why do judges do this to kids? Does ANY kid like this arrangement?

You have the option of giving 100% to other parent if you're that concerned, don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a good alternative. Why should one person do all the work of parenting during the school year and the other one has all the fun of time off with the kids?

So you think my ex was actively parenting the kids when we were married? I love that for you. No, he didn't even want full weekends and CERTAINLY didn't want Friday after school to Sunday mornings ('because then i lose friday night and saturday night!!') and finally agreed on Saturday at 5pm to Sunday to 5pm. After five or six Saturday nights of pizza for dinner they asked him to cook dinner. No. Then they'd read or play with whatever toy they brought before bed. Awake Sunday by 7am, and I finally told them they couldn't call me unless it was an emergency until 9am because it was my only morning to sleep late. So they'd call me at 9:02. Their father would sleep until noon or 1pm. Then he'd return them at 3pm. And get annoyed with me for not being home to receive them. "Where are you? I'll bring them to you." They didn't shower there, they didn't get their hair brushed, got crap food, and their father didn't want them there. Zero interest. Happy to pay child support and have me do all the work.

So, because you married a crappy disengaged husband and father to your kids, you assume all men are that way. Sorry, not true at all. Why did you have kids with a man like that? 50-50 should be standard for most situations.

I don't assume all men are that way, but I think each family should be considered one by one. Not 50/50 for everyone unless it's a problem. And he was a great husband before we had kids! I wanted 3, he wanted 4, and after 2 I was like "I can't handle any more without help" and he'd swear he'd change and help and be different and just go off birth control and let's get rolling on that third.... meanwhile he would never change a diaper and announced he'd had a realization he doesn't have patience for kids after all. But pre-kids he was an excellent husband. Even while I was pregnant and giving birth. But the second we got home he was exhausted, then "I don't know how; I don't want to hurt her" and when I tried the "just leave him for a few hours and let him figure it out" I came home to a baby screaming with hunger who wound up with a diaper rash.

By saying "he was a great husband before we had kids", did you mean he was very hands-on and willing to take on a fair share of household chores (especially those that were traditionally considered "women's work") such as cooking, cleaning and fixing up things around the house? Or did you mean he wined and dined you, and showered you with compliments and gifts, but just sat around all day and didn't do sh*t around the house? If it was the latter, then I'm not surprised at all that he didn't do sh*t after kids were born.

[Anonymous]

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

This is the answer, IMO.

I grew up with 50/50 parents where we shuffled between homes. It was terrible. This was during a time before cell phones were widely owned/used, too. I missed out on practices and activities so many times b/c my parents got their wires crossed on who was responsible for picking up/dropping off that day.

Add in the times when my dad's new gf would be petty and not let anything that "she" bought be taken to my mom's house and it was not worth the hassle. Straight up. Hell, we hardly saw either parent on the days when we were with them, so what was the point? Just so each + the court go to feel good about doing the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a good alternative. Why should one person do all the work of parenting during the school year and the other one has all the fun of time off with the kids?

So you think my ex was actively parenting the kids when we were married? I love that for you. No, he didn't even want full weekends and CERTAINLY didn't want Friday after school to Sunday mornings ('because then i lose friday night and saturday night!!') and finally agreed on Saturday at 5pm to Sunday to 5pm. After five or six Saturday nights of pizza for dinner they asked him to cook dinner. No. Then they'd read or play with whatever toy they brought before bed. Awake Sunday by 7am, and I finally told them they couldn't call me unless it was an emergency until 9am because it was my only morning to sleep late. So they'd call me at 9:02. Their father would sleep until noon or 1pm. Then he'd return them at 3pm. And get annoyed with me for not being home to receive them. "Where are you? I'll bring them to you." They didn't shower there, they didn't get their hair brushed, got crap food, and their father didn't want them there. Zero interest. Happy to pay child support and have me do all the work.

So, because you married a crappy disengaged husband and father to your kids, you assume all men are that way. Sorry, not true at all. Why did you have kids with a man like that? 50-50 should be standard for most situations.

I don't assume all men are that way, but I think each family should be considered one by one. Not 50/50 for everyone unless it's a problem. And he was a great husband before we had kids! I wanted 3, he wanted 4, and after 2 I was like "I can't handle any more without help" and he'd swear he'd change and help and be different and just go off birth control and let's get rolling on that third.... meanwhile he would never change a diaper and announced he'd had a realization he doesn't have patience for kids after all. But pre-kids he was an excellent husband. Even while I was pregnant and giving birth. But the second we got home he was exhausted, then "I don't know how; I don't want to hurt her" and when I tried the "just leave him for a few hours and let him figure it out" I came home to a baby screaming with hunger who wound up with a diaper rash.

Yes, you do assume it.

DP.

I assume that if they are divorced, atleast one person in the relationship is crappy. In pp's case, her DH was.

It's not children's fault that their parents chose lousy partners for themselves. Let the children stay in the main house and the parents move back and forth to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a good alternative. Why should one person do all the work of parenting during the school year and the other one has all the fun of time off with the kids?

So you think my ex was actively parenting the kids when we were married? I love that for you. No, he didn't even want full weekends and CERTAINLY didn't want Friday after school to Sunday mornings ('because then i lose friday night and saturday night!!') and finally agreed on Saturday at 5pm to Sunday to 5pm. After five or six Saturday nights of pizza for dinner they asked him to cook dinner. No. Then they'd read or play with whatever toy they brought before bed. Awake Sunday by 7am, and I finally told them they couldn't call me unless it was an emergency until 9am because it was my only morning to sleep late. So they'd call me at 9:02. Their father would sleep until noon or 1pm. Then he'd return them at 3pm. And get annoyed with me for not being home to receive them. "Where are you? I'll bring them to you." They didn't shower there, they didn't get their hair brushed, got crap food, and their father didn't want them there. Zero interest. Happy to pay child support and have me do all the work.

So, because you married a crappy disengaged husband and father to your kids, you assume all men are that way. Sorry, not true at all. Why did you have kids with a man like that? 50-50 should be standard for most situations.

I don't assume all men are that way, but I think each family should be considered one by one. Not 50/50 for everyone unless it's a problem. And he was a great husband before we had kids! I wanted 3, he wanted 4, and after 2 I was like "I can't handle any more without help" and he'd swear he'd change and help and be different and just go off birth control and let's get rolling on that third.... meanwhile he would never change a diaper and announced he'd had a realization he doesn't have patience for kids after all. But pre-kids he was an excellent husband. Even while I was pregnant and giving birth. But the second we got home he was exhausted, then "I don't know how; I don't want to hurt her" and when I tried the "just leave him for a few hours and let him figure it out" I came home to a baby screaming with hunger who wound up with a diaper rash.

Yes, you do assume it.

DP.

I assume that if they are divorced, atleast one person in the relationship is crappy. In pp's case, her DH was.

It's not children's fault that their parents chose lousy partners for themselves. Let the children stay in the main house and the parents move back and forth to them.

We don’t know as we are only hearing one side. Most cannot afford this.

[Anonymous]

I agree it is awful/ I think it should be 70/30. Not 50/50. It (50/50) is the worst for everyone…parents and kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree it is awful/ I think it should be 70/30. Not 50/50. It (50/50) is the worst for everyone…parents and kids.

You think it's healthy to only see one parent a few times a month? That's not healthy nor is a relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that divorce is terrible for kids under any circumstance. Custody arrangements are just shuffling the deck chairs. While divorce is sadly necessary in some cases, these debates are mostly about allowing divorced parents, or those contemplating divorce, to convince themselves that because some options are better or worse, that necessarily one of them is "good." And to allow them to blame the particulars of a "bad" custody arrangement for all problems, rather than acknowledging that most of the problems that arise come from the divorce itself, not the implementation details.

Divorce is not always terrible for kids. At all. But what is always terrible for kids is growing up in a very toxic household with married parents. My childhood was awful with married parents. My kids childhood is great. They are very happy kids. I’m divorced. We live 5 min apart. It’s fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

Most men don’t pursue custody.

Yes, they do! Even the ones who did nothing. Just ask me. And all of my divorced friends/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

Most men don’t pursue custody.

Yes, they do! Even the ones who did nothing. Just ask me. And all of my divorced friends/

The stats don’t lie.

[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.

until one parent re-marries. It may still work while there is only a new spouse, but once there are new siblings it stops being an option.

Or, if the one parent, the custodial parent leaves to be with the AP. Then what, the AP moves into the house every other week? Sone divorces are messy.

Many parents don’t remarry. We won’t. Been divorced for years. No steps or new sibs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree it is awful/ I think it should be 70/30. Not 50/50. It (50/50) is the worst for everyone…parents and kids.

You think it's healthy to only see one parent a few times a month? That's not healthy nor is a relationship.

Yes, if the once/month parent is shitty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree it is awful/ I think it should be 70/30. Not 50/50. It (50/50) is the worst for everyone…parents and kids.

You think it's healthy to only see one parent a few times a month? That's not healthy nor is a relationship.

30% is not a few times a month. The kid should have one a primary home 70% of the time. Other parent could see them more but skews one place 70% of the time.

Not fair me ex did ZERO parenting for 6 years and then got 50/50. It is messed up.

[Anonymous]

I have 70/30 and I agree. My ex was never an equal coparent and the custody schedule reflects that.

ex travelled 80 -100 nights a year for the duration of our marriage.

Giving them 50/50 would have meant they saw the kids more for leaving their family. Nope.

[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.

until one parent re-marries. It may still work while there is only a new spouse, but once there are new siblings it stops being an option.

Or, if the one parent, the custodial parent leaves to be with the AP. Then what, the AP moves into the house every other week? Sone divorces are messy.

Many parents don’t remarry. We won’t. Been divorced for years. No steps or new sibs.

Just because you don’t remarry does not mean no new partners.