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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I cannot imagine he did nothing. You could always take the 30% if you think one home is important.

Yes, he did nothing. Zero. He came home and watched TV. I could not leave the house. I also worked the entire time. I was bleeding once and woke him to help me and he yelled at me. He never woke up to help me with kids. Ever. The one time, he yelled at me. I waited until elementary school to divorce. He could not take care of little kids.

I'm sorry you and your children went thru this and I hope things are better.

[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.

So you just came here to sh!tstir. You sound lovely.

[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.

So if your adult children are divorcing, would you advocate them letting their ex having like 80% of the time?

[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.

So if your adult children are divorcing, would you advocate them letting their ex having like 80% of the time?

I first told them don't get married if you aren't sure. If you are sure and get married, don't have kids for 5 to 7 years. Enjoy yourselves, travel. Have a several year honeymoon. Then if you still want kids, do a brutal budget and time schedule. Understand what you will be giving up. Talk to your friends who by then will have kids.

If they still want kids, then great. I am on board for babysitting.

[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.

So if your adult children are divorcing, would you advocate them letting their ex having like 80% of the time?

I first told them don't get married if you aren't sure. If you are sure and get married, don't have kids for 5 to 7 years. Enjoy yourselves, travel. Have a several year honeymoon. Then if you still want kids, do a brutal budget and time schedule. Understand what you will be giving up. Talk to your friends who by then will have kids.

If they still want kids, then great. I am on board for babysitting.

[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?

Says a woman who failed in marriage. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Says a woman who failed in marriage. Lol.

Keep up. OP here. Never divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Says a woman who failed in marriage. Lol.

Keep up. OP here. Never divorced.

It’s pretty sad you advocate kids losing one parent because the parents divorce. Are you will to give up custody and see your kids every other weekend, at best.

[Anonymous]

It’s sad but there’s not really an ideal way to do coparenting. People do it because it’s better than the alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad but there’s not really an ideal way to do coparenting. People do it because it’s better than the alternative.

Nothing will be ideal, but that's not enough of a reason to take away custody and only give dad 4 days a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Says a woman who failed in marriage. Lol.

Keep up. OP here. Never divorced.

It’s pretty sad you advocate kids losing one parent because the parents divorce. Are you will to give up custody and see your kids every other weekend, at best.

I advocate people putting their kids first. Your most important thing you do for your kids is selecting a great parent as a mate.

Not the cool one or the hot one or the rich one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if your adult children are divorcing, would you advocate them letting their ex having like 80% of the time?

I first told them don't get married if you aren't sure. If you are sure and get married, don't have kids for 5 to 7 years. Enjoy yourselves, travel. Have a several year honeymoon. Then if you still want kids, do a brutal budget and time schedule. Understand what you will be giving up. Talk to your friends who by then will have kids.

If they still want kids, then great. I am on board for babysitting.

Ok, but you never answered the question. That has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Says a woman who failed in marriage. Lol.

Keep up. OP here. Never divorced.

It’s pretty sad you advocate kids losing one parent because the parents divorce. Are you will to give up custody and see your kids every other weekend, at best.

I advocate people putting their kids first. Your most important thing you do for your kids is selecting a great parent as a mate.

Not the cool one or the hot one or the rich one.

That’s not the question or topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if your adult children are divorcing, would you advocate them letting their ex having like 80% of the time?

I first told them don't get married if you aren't sure. If you are sure and get married, don't have kids for 5 to 7 years. Enjoy yourselves, travel. Have a several year honeymoon. Then if you still want kids, do a brutal budget and time schedule. Understand what you will be giving up. Talk to your friends who by then will have kids.

If they still want kids, then great. I am on board for babysitting.

Ok, but you never answered the question. That has nothing to do with it.

Yes I think kids should be in one home 80 percent of the time.

Because it’s the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if your adult children are divorcing, would you advocate them letting their ex having like 80% of the time?

I first told them don't get married if you aren't sure. If you are sure and get married, don't have kids for 5 to 7 years. Enjoy yourselves, travel. Have a several year honeymoon. Then if you still want kids, do a brutal budget and time schedule. Understand what you will be giving up. Talk to your friends who by then will have kids.

If they still want kids, then great. I am on board for babysitting.

Ok, but you never answered the question. That has nothing to do with it.

Yes I think kids should be in one home 80 percent of the time.

Because it’s the right thing to do.

So, are you willing to be the 20% home? No, it’s not right when a parent loses their kids to their ex being selfish and generally it’s about money. More custody, less visits, more child support.