Custody schedule 2-2-5 versus one week on/one week off (with midweek overnight)

[Anonymous]

The person who is pushing one home as being the best is utterly ridiculous. It just what works best for her. It completely limits the other parents time with their children. Just having dinner with the kids is NOT parenting. I feel bad for those kids who are essentially growing up in a one parent home.

[Anonymous]

We both agreed that one home is best. So I have the house and the kid, but kid sees dad most days of the week. Dad lives close and does school pickups and drops him here, takes him all day one weekend day, goes to all events, feeds him dinner a few times a week, etc. But my kid has a single home base, one room, one bed, and one set of stuff. I can't even imagine kids shuttling around two to three times a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We both agreed that one home is best. So I have the house and the kid, but kid sees dad most days of the week. Dad lives close and does school pickups and drops him here, takes him all day one weekend day, goes to all events, feeds him dinner a few times a week, etc. But my kid has a single home base, one room, one bed, and one set of stuff. I can't even imagine kids shuttling around two to three times a week.

So, you are telling your child is is not able to be at his Dad's home? If Dad is a good guy, what message are you sending? Or, you are saying child isn't welcome at Dad's home. Child has two parents in two homes. He should be welcomed in both. I'm assuming you want it that way to increase your child support as some go by overnights.

[Anonymous]

My sister's kids have a 2-2-3 schedule with their parents. I have talked to both my sister and my nieces about it over the years. It has not worked out that badly for them. The girls are a senior and a sophomore in HS now. Both my nieces and my sister would have preferred for my sister to have custody during the school week and their father to have them every other weekend. But, my exBIL did not want to pay child support, so pushed for 50/50 custody and this schedule.

I think they made it work without major problems because my sister and her ex live within a mile of each other and both in the same school district, so the girls can ride the bus to school from either house. And, if they forgot something at one house, it's easy for a parent to run them over so they can pick it up.

They were also 9 and 11 when the divorce happened, so old enough to manage the logistics of the transitions largely by themselves (no parent was packing a suitcase each time.) I do not think this would work with kids much younger than this.

My sister and her ex have tried to stay on good terms and stay flexible about helping each other out when conflicts arise. They pretty easily trade weekends when things come up, but they don't have to always ask each other for help on week nights because the girls were old enough to stay by themselves by the time the divorce happened. My ExBIL is a jackass who lives with the girlfriend and her kids that he cheated on my sister with, but they try to stay cordial and cooperative on kid stuff. It does make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We both agreed that one home is best. So I have the house and the kid, but kid sees dad most days of the week. Dad lives close and does school pickups and drops him here, takes him all day one weekend day, goes to all events, feeds him dinner a few times a week, etc. But my kid has a single home base, one room, one bed, and one set of stuff. I can't even imagine kids shuttling around two to three times a week.

So, you are telling your child is is not able to be at his Dad's home? If Dad is a good guy, what message are you sending? Or, you are saying child isn't welcome at Dad's home. Child has two parents in two homes. He should be welcomed in both. I'm assuming you want it that way to increase your child support as some go by overnights.

You don't know anything about us. Dad lives in a studio - that's what we can afford because we are keeping the kid in the marital home. This is actually a pretty common situation for non one-per enter divorced parents. You are painting some BS fantasy about two full "homes" with gardens, playrooms, and dogs. If I have to go out of town, dad would sleep over here because the important thing to us is the the kid sleeps in HIS bed every night. And it says more about you than me that you presume I'm just a money-grubbing beyotch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We both agreed that one home is best. So I have the house and the kid, but kid sees dad most days of the week. Dad lives close and does school pickups and drops him here, takes him all day one weekend day, goes to all events, feeds him dinner a few times a week, etc. But my kid has a single home base, one room, one bed, and one set of stuff. I can't even imagine kids shuttling around two to three times a week.

So, you are telling your child is is not able to be at his Dad's home? If Dad is a good guy, what message are you sending? Or, you are saying child isn't welcome at Dad's home. Child has two parents in two homes. He should be welcomed in both. I'm assuming you want it that way to increase your child support as some go by overnights.

You don't know anything about us. Dad lives in a studio - that's what we can afford because we are keeping the kid in the marital home. This is actually a pretty common situation for non one-per enter divorced parents. You are painting some BS fantasy about two full "homes" with gardens, playrooms, and dogs. If I have to go out of town, dad would sleep over here because the important thing to us is the the kid sleeps in HIS bed every night. And it says more about you than me that you presume I'm just a money-grubbing beyotch.

I don't see you as a money-grubbing beotch, just someone who drank the kool aid about how kids don't need dads and moms are the real parents...you may think men are the kind who just take off at any second so better the kid doesn't build too much of a relationship with him. To him dad has no grounding, no home, he just occasionally drops in to moms house to say hi. you are fine with dad living in a tiny studio so you can stay in a big home and enjoy all the perks of a home, while he has a sucky quality of life. I hope you don't accept any child support or else I would feel you are also money grubbing. Your husband lost his home and his life and his son in the divorce. I really hope he was cheating scum or else you must have had a cut throat take it all lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We both agreed that one home is best. So I have the house and the kid, but kid sees dad most days of the week. Dad lives close and does school pickups and drops him here, takes him all day one weekend day, goes to all events, feeds him dinner a few times a week, etc. But my kid has a single home base, one room, one bed, and one set of stuff. I can't even imagine kids shuttling around two to three times a week.

So, you are telling your child is is not able to be at his Dad's home? If Dad is a good guy, what message are you sending? Or, you are saying child isn't welcome at Dad's home. Child has two parents in two homes. He should be welcomed in both. I'm assuming you want it that way to increase your child support as some go by overnights.

You don't know anything about us. Dad lives in a studio - that's what we can afford because we are keeping the kid in the marital home. This is actually a pretty common situation for non one-per enter divorced parents. You are painting some BS fantasy about two full "homes" with gardens, playrooms, and dogs. If I have to go out of town, dad would sleep over here because the important thing to us is the the kid sleeps in HIS bed every night. And it says more about you than me that you presume I'm just a money-grubbing beyotch.

I don't see you as a money-grubbing beotch, just someone who drank the kool aid about how kids don't need dads and moms are the real parents...you may think men are the kind who just take off at any second so better the kid doesn't build too much of a relationship with him. To him dad has no grounding, no home, he just occasionally drops in to moms house to say hi. you are fine with dad living in a tiny studio so you can stay in a big home and enjoy all the perks of a home, while he has a sucky quality of life. I hope you don't accept any child support or else I would feel you are also money grubbing. Your husband lost his home and his life and his son in the divorce. I really hope he was cheating scum or else you must have had a cut throat take it all lawyer.

Makes no sense to keep a big house for one child. Child can sleep in studio with dad. It may not be grand but he is with his father. You very clearly see dad as a babysitter and not a parent. So, your kid never sleeps over anyone's house and never travels with you. If he does he is not in his bed. You have double standards. You get far more child support is dad has no overnights. Married parents don't have grand houses with playrooms and dogs. We don't and our kids are just fine. There is more to life than a fancy house.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, sorry this "child must stay in one home" poster is so freaking annoying. She touts it as though it is best for kids per all research, doesn't provide the research and then goes on about the dad can just take the kid for dinner and games. Some of us, need to minimize our contact with the ex spouse but want the children to have their own independent relationship with that parent. So two homes is best. The child can and should feel at home and comfortable in both homes--whether it is a studio or a castle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're asking what is best for the CHILDREN, neither. Most experts agree that children need one home. Going back and forth is very hard on kids. So, every weekend or every other weekend is best for the child. Unfortunately, parents going through divorce rarely make decisions that are best for the children.

And taking away one parent isn't bad?

It wasn't bad for my kids. They had every Wednesday from after school through dinner, then either Friday through Saturday after dinner or Saturday afternoon through Sunday before dinner.

This way they had one home. They knew where all their stuff was, all the time. He attends all parties, games, school events, etc. We only live an hour apart.

So, they get one home and one parent. You are basically restricting the parent to be a parent and they are more like an uncle vs. parent. Kids need equal time with both parents and be comfortable in both homes.

I don't know what world has uncles seeing their nieces twice a week and having them over for sleepovers every weekend. I don't know of any uncles who help their nieces study their spelling words weekly and take their nieces to the dentist.

They Facetime and text daily. They never go more than three days without seeing each other. They ARE comfortable in both homes. When my ex is nearby us he will call to ask if he can come by. If it's around dinner, he gets invited to stay and eat with us.

+1. 1 parent with full custody doesn't necessarily mean the other parent is an uncle. Kids don't necessarily need equal time to have 2 parents. We do this for reasons that are specific to parent health issues and professional obligations, but it doesn't make that parent less of a parent. My kids live with me 24/7, but ex dines with us several times a week and he is welcome (with some limits) in my home. Kids also go to his house but never spend the night there. This is what works for us. Kids are very well-adjusted.

That said, we had friends who chose differently -- started with rotating kid to each parent's home by week. 7 days was too long. Child wanted to see parents more often. So, parents switched to 2-2-3 where each parent has a stable set of weeknights and they alternate weekends, which effectively works out to 2-5. So, Mom is M,T, Dad is W, TH and alternate weekends means that Mom has a block of 5 that is F to Tues., and Dad has a weekend block that is Wed. to Sun. I think they have bioparent and biokids family dinner on Sunday to do scheduling for the week.

Do what works for your child and your family. There are no rules. Whatever 2 parents can agree upon, the courts will sign off on as long as both parents have representation and there is no intimation of undue pressure.

That is not being a parent by dining with kids a few times a week. It is what woks for you.

It is being a parent. Other parent is getting equal time in all waking hours minus time spent sleeping, showering and eating breakfast before school. Yes, it is what works for us and that doesn't make anyone less of a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're asking what is best for the CHILDREN, neither. Most experts agree that children need one home. Going back and forth is very hard on kids. So, every weekend or every other weekend is best for the child. Unfortunately, parents going through divorce rarely make decisions that are best for the children.

And taking away one parent isn't bad?

It wasn't bad for my kids. They had every Wednesday from after school through dinner, then either Friday through Saturday after dinner or Saturday afternoon through Sunday before dinner.

This way they had one home. They knew where all their stuff was, all the time. He attends all parties, games, school events, etc. We only live an hour apart.

So, they get one home and one parent. You are basically restricting the parent to be a parent and they are more like an uncle vs. parent. Kids need equal time with both parents and be comfortable in both homes.

I am not pp but, the one who said friends have done this and it worked. I don't know all the details of how they did it but, assuming that the parents followed the schedule that they want the kids to do than both parents could be involved and the kids would get the benefit of staying in their home. So, Mom could be there Sat, Sun, Monday, Tuesday and Dad could be there Wednesday, Thursday,, Friday and leave Saturday.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Or is it only the kids who suffer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're asking what is best for the CHILDREN, neither. Most experts agree that children need one home. Going back and forth is very hard on kids. So, every weekend or every other weekend is best for the child. Unfortunately, parents going through divorce rarely make decisions that are best for the children.

And taking away one parent isn't bad?

It wasn't bad for my kids. They had every Wednesday from after school through dinner, then either Friday through Saturday after dinner or Saturday afternoon through Sunday before dinner.

This way they had one home. They knew where all their stuff was, all the time. He attends all parties, games, school events, etc. We only live an hour apart.

So, they get one home and one parent. You are basically restricting the parent to be a parent and they are more like an uncle vs. parent. Kids need equal time with both parents and be comfortable in both homes.

I don't know what world has uncles seeing their nieces twice a week and having them over for sleepovers every weekend. I don't know of any uncles who help their nieces study their spelling words weekly and take their nieces to the dentist.

They Facetime and text daily. They never go more than three days without seeing each other. They ARE comfortable in both homes. When my ex is nearby us he will call to ask if he can come by. If it's around dinner, he gets invited to stay and eat with us.

+1. 1 parent with full custody doesn't necessarily mean the other parent is an uncle. Kids don't necessarily need equal time to have 2 parents. We do this for reasons that are specific to parent health issues and professional obligations, but it doesn't make that parent less of a parent. My kids live with me 24/7, but ex dines with us several times a week and he is welcome (with some limits) in my home. Kids also go to his house but never spend the night there. This is what works for us. Kids are very well-adjusted.

That said, we had friends who chose differently -- started with rotating kid to each parent's home by week. 7 days was too long. Child wanted to see parents more often. So, parents switched to 2-2-3 where each parent has a stable set of weeknights and they alternate weekends, which effectively works out to 2-5. So, Mom is M,T, Dad is W, TH and alternate weekends means that Mom has a block of 5 that is F to Tues., and Dad has a weekend block that is Wed. to Sun. I think they have bioparent and biokids family dinner on Sunday to do scheduling for the week.

Do what works for your child and your family. There are no rules. Whatever 2 parents can agree upon, the courts will sign off on as long as both parents have representation and there is no intimation of undue pressure.

That is not being a parent by dining with kids a few times a week. It is what woks for you.

It is being a parent. Other parent is getting equal time in all waking hours minus time spent sleeping, showering and eating breakfast before school. Yes, it is what works for us and that doesn't make anyone less of a parent.

Why bother get divorced if both parents are spending this much time together? It is ridiculous

[Anonymous]

I'm not even divorced so I don't have a dog in the fight but I'm wondering whether the posters that say equal time is a requirement for each parent to actually be a parent apply that standard to married couples? Does a parent who works more hours suddenly become more of an uncle/aunt because child sees the other parent more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not even divorced so I don't have a dog in the fight but I'm wondering whether the posters that say equal time is a requirement for each parent to actually be a parent apply that standard to married couples? Does a parent who works more hours suddenly become more of an uncle/aunt because child sees the other parent more?

Completely different. Something is lost for the child when parents divorce. So parents have to work twice as hard to maintain the bond and foster the emotions. I was the breadwinner prior to divorce (I'm the mom) and worked very long hours. My exdh was the primary caretaker. We got divorced--and all of a sudden that arrangement we had could no longer stand because we both needed to work and be parents in two homes. In order to do this, I had to adjust my schedule. But there was no way, I was going to continue working insane hours and miss out on being mom in my kids lives. Something shifted...

[Anonymous]

OP-hope you're still reading, sorry you haven't gotten many responses that actually address your question.

I'm a fan of the 2/2/5 because I can schedule my late work meetings/community commitments on Mon and Tues and then maximize my time with my kid. I hear that week on/week off works better for kids who struggle with transitions and in families where the divorced parents still have a high degree of conflict.

[Anonymous]

OP, I'm in a 2/2/3 now with my boys, ages 7 and 5. This was the recommended approach by our co-parenting coach back in 2014 when we divorced. I enjoy it and the boys seems to enjoy the frequency of seeing both of us. Their dad and I live a few miles apart (I'm out of the school district) so it isn't an issue to run projects/homework/toys back and forth if we need to do so.

Ideally when they get to later elementary school I'd like to go week to week. But we have to negotiate that, so we'll see!