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

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP. I am lucky to have an ex who doesn’t care to have the kid 50% of the time, especially not during the school year. He gets almost every weekend and as much time in the summer as he and our son want. We live close to each other fwiw.
I don’t think dad would be closer to kid if he has him 50%. Kid stayed with dad for 3 weeks and I didn’t really see how and if it brought them closer.

[Anonymous]

I was raised on a 50/50 custody schedule (parents split in 1988, this was unheard of at the time). It was great. Wonderful. I’m so, so grateful that’s what my parents did. I have excellent relationships with both of them, and a fabulous stepfather too. Could not have worked out better.

I never felt like I “didn’t have a home.” I always felt very lucky to have TWO happy homes.

When I think about how must kids in my situation ended up with such a weak relationship with their father, it makes me so sad.

[Anonymous]

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.

I disagree, as someone who had a trivial weekends only relationship with 1 parent.

[Anonymous]

I thank God 50/50 wasn't the norm when my parents divorced. My dad was a drunk and my life would've been much worse had I lived with him half 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.

Do you think divorce is “selfish”?

I do. Sometimes necessary, though. But don't compound the issue by forcing them to live like vagabonds.

[Anonymous]

My exdh and I have 50/50. My dc have two homes and are not, in fact, vagabonds. They only carry their school backpack daily (just like kids who live at one home).

Dc seem happy and look forward to the time with each parent. With our work/school schedules, each parent sees the dc most days-it's not like they disappear into a black hole when not with the parent.

It probably does help that we live just blocks apart, it's easy to grab something if needed and we get along well enough to go to practices, events, ect for our dc. My dc do not want to go long times without seeing both parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thank God 50/50 wasn't the norm when my parents divorced. My dad was a drunk and my life would've been much worse had I lived with him half of the time.

That is a real problem. You see it a lot on these boards. Dads who are terrible, but because of judges prejudice for men regardless of their parenting skills still get 50/50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"Kids are resilient" is a phrase that adults use to justify actions that they know are not in the child's best interest. You are calling it dumb, because you are looking at it from the adult's perspective. But adults can also choose to be resilient and be civil with the ex and let the children stay in one home while the parents do the switching until the kids are at least older teenagers and can decide for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"Kids are resilient" is a phrase that adults use to justify actions that they know are not in the child's best interest. You are calling it dumb, because you are looking at it from the adult's perspective. But adults can also choose to be resilient and be civil with the ex and let the children stay in one home while the parents do the switching until the kids are at least older teenagers and can decide for themselves.

It's in the kids best interests for parents to stay together but if that doesn't happen they deserve equal relationships with both parents baring abuse or neglect. Sadly, some will make up abuse or neglect to block the parents relationship and the court system is a job for enforcing relationships.

[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.

Do you think divorce is “selfish”?

I do. Sometimes necessary, though. But don't compound the issue by forcing them to live like vagabonds.

Then, you should be the parent with every other weekend visits and let the other parent have full custody. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Interesting debate. My parents divorced at 2 and I grew up going to my Dad’s every single weekend, then as a teen I went every other weekend. We also had a tight knit extended family on his side who we spent a ton of time with. My parents lived 45 minutes apart and it was so hard to leave my mom every Friday and then leave my Dad every Sunday. It was hard only really having friends in one place. Divorce is just hard. But both my parents were devoted to me. When I went down to every other weekend, so I could see my friends more, my Dad drove over to take me out to dinner on the off weeks, every week for years. I grew up pretty well adjusted and very loved. But I definitely can see how growing up without divorce makes life a lot easier for my kids and I am glad about that.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

One and a half, really, because you're so crappy that you don't count for a full one.
- Also not divorced

[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, why don't you tell us what's wrong with you that you spend your time and energy worrying about other people's kids? Are you medicated? Going to therapy? How did it affect your children? Do they still talk to you? Can your husband stand you?

[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.

We have kids so there will never be a clean break. No sos come into our shared house and half the time we go into our own houses. Cleaning service for the nest house, and the kids feel like it is their home so they do so much cleaning and cooking too. If i could have this arrangement and still stay married, it would have been ideal.