Several States considered laws to promote shared custody of children after divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree custody should be 50/50, if that is how childcare is split during the marriage. But why should the parent, who has worked FT, and done 90 percent of the childcare and 100 percent of the household tasks during the marriage then lose the lion’s share of custody in the divorce?

That parent is already at a disadvantage economically, as he or she has probably taken a lower-paying job in order to have the flexibility needed to be the default parent.

Under our current system, all men need to do to ensure 50% custody during divorce is to make sure they do 50% of the childcare and household admin during the marriage. Take your child to daycare or school 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the doctor appointments. Buy children's clothing 50% of the time. Do carpool 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the parent/teacher meetings.

The current standard for custody of children in many states is "best interest of the child." If you do 50% of the care of your child during the entirety of the marriage, then it will be in the best interests of the child that you continue to provide that care.

All mandatory 50/50 custody laws do is ensure that men can fail to care for their children during the course of the marriage and still get half custody after the marriage, and ensure that they pay little to no child support to boot. And statistic after statistic show that men, by and large although not all of them, consistently fail to do equal childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree custody should be 50/50, if that is how childcare is split during the marriage. But why should the parent, who has worked FT, and done 90 percent of the childcare and 100 percent of the household tasks during the marriage then lose the lion’s share of custody in the divorce?

That parent is already at a disadvantage economically, as he or she has probably taken a lower-paying job in order to have the flexibility needed to be the default parent.

Under our current system, all men need to do to ensure 50% custody during divorce is to make sure they do 50% of the childcare and household admin during the marriage. Take your child to daycare or school 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the doctor appointments. Buy children's clothing 50% of the time. Do carpool 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the parent/teacher meetings.

The current standard for custody of children in many states is "best interest of the child." If you do 50% of the care of your child during the entirety of the marriage, then it will be in the best interests of the child that you continue to provide that care.

All mandatory 50/50 custody laws do is ensure that men can fail to care for their children during the course of the marriage and still get half custody after the marriage, and ensure that they pay little to no child support to boot. And statistic after statistic show that men, by and large although not all of them, consistently fail to do equal childcare.

It's not about you. It's about the kid. The kid cares about being clothed, fed, sheltered and love. The kid does not care about doctor's appointments. Your kid is not going to ask you about how many doctor's appointments you attended during their childhood.
If time is spent equally with both parents there is no need for child support.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's a good idea for kids to be flipped back and forth like that and having parents swap houses only works if the parents remain single and don't have any more kids.

There is a reason we went to primary physical custody.

Courts just need to enforce visitation Moms that withhold visitation should be subject to jail time just like dad's that don't pay.

[Anonymous]

My ex has our child on weekends (2 nights a week) while I have 5 nights. People act like I've robbed him of having a life as a result. I've had men say "Don't you ever give him a break?" In truth, we have this arrangement because his work hours make it impossible for him to get her back and forth to school during the week, so he would have to rely on others to do so. If he ever sought to split time 50/50, I wouldn't fight it. Sure, I would argue that split custody makes little sense during the first year IF (and only if) you are nursing. But kids need their fathers just as much as they need us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree custody should be 50/50, if that is how childcare is split during the marriage. But why should the parent, who has worked FT, and done 90 percent of the childcare and 100 percent of the household tasks during the marriage then lose the lion’s share of custody in the divorce?

That parent is already at a disadvantage economically, as he or she has probably taken a lower-paying job in order to have the flexibility needed to be the default parent.

Under our current system, all men need to do to ensure 50% custody during divorce is to make sure they do 50% of the childcare and household admin during the marriage. Take your child to daycare or school 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the doctor appointments. Buy children's clothing 50% of the time. Do carpool 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the parent/teacher meetings.

The current standard for custody of children in many states is "best interest of the child." If you do 50% of the care of your child during the entirety of the marriage, then it will be in the best interests of the child that you continue to provide that care.

All mandatory 50/50 custody laws do is ensure that men can fail to care for their children during the course of the marriage and still get half custody after the marriage, and ensure that they pay little to no child support to boot. And statistic after statistic show that men, by and large although not all of them, consistently fail to do equal childcare.

It's not about you. It's about the kid. The kid cares about being clothed, fed, sheltered and love. The kid does not care about doctor's appointments. Your kid is not going to ask you about how many doctor's appointments you attended during their childhood.
If time is spent equally with both parents there is no need for child support.

So all men have to do is impregnant their wife, and they should then get 50/50 custody in the divorce because that is in the best interest of the child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shared custody should be the default absent reasons not to do it. Child support should be based on what the kid(s) need and who makes what.

+1. I’m all for it. When mothers presume they are more worthy of custody it really bugs me.

They are more worthy of custody because they carry and gave birth to the child. Also because we live in a country without guaranteed paid maternity leave and feeerr protections for pregnant women or women with young children. So this means women are affected more by having children than men. Now you're saying women should take unpaid leave and hurt their careers by having children but then if they get divorced should have to pay 50 percent of the costs.

So adoptive mothers are less worthy of custody?

[Anonymous]

Most men aren't that worthy or that interested in their children. Typically, women should have primary custody. Too often women have given up their full earning potential to stay homes, so yes, the should get child support.

That is what is actually best for children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think its wonderful and should have been done many years ago. The elimination of child support would only be if the women had equal salaries.

+1. Even now when there is 50/50 custody child support is only awarded when the difference in salary is enough to warrant it, and things like health insurance, childcare, and uncovered medical are all split proportionally based on income (when salaries are equal, each parent pays 50%).

Granted, I tend to laugh a little when men (particularly white men) complain about the laws, because the laws were written, implemented, and interpreted in the courts by white men.They weren't written and passed to protect women or children, they were written by men, to further their interests. Child support wasn't enforceable until fairly recently either (the ability to track the location of someone ordered to pay came with the implementation of technology over the past 20 years or so), and now that it's enforceable I find it funny that men suddenly actually want responsibility for their children.

You realize that the men currently complaining are not the same men who wrote the laws, right? And, unless they are on their second set of children, they are also not the same men who often got away with skipping out on child support until a couple of decades ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree custody should be 50/50, if that is how childcare is split during the marriage. But why should the parent, who has worked FT, and done 90 percent of the childcare and 100 percent of the household tasks during the marriage then lose the lion’s share of custody in the divorce?

That parent is already at a disadvantage economically, as he or she has probably taken a lower-paying job in order to have the flexibility needed to be the default parent.

This. I'd actually laugh if most divorced dads earned 50 percent custody. They would be screwed. Even my husband who tries to split takes 50/50 can't manage and juggle the many things required to run a household and hold down a good job.

Man here. I have primary custody of my children. My ex wanted something different out of life. Don’t paint all men with this brush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree custody should be 50/50, if that is how childcare is split during the marriage. But why should the parent, who has worked FT, and done 90 percent of the childcare and 100 percent of the household tasks during the marriage then lose the lion’s share of custody in the divorce?

That parent is already at a disadvantage economically, as he or she has probably taken a lower-paying job in order to have the flexibility needed to be the default parent.

Under our current system, all men need to do to ensure 50% custody during divorce is to make sure they do 50% of the childcare and household admin during the marriage. Take your child to daycare or school 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the doctor appointments. Buy children's clothing 50% of the time. Do carpool 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the parent/teacher meetings.

The current standard for custody of children in many states is "best interest of the child." If you do 50% of the care of your child during the entirety of the marriage, then it will be in the best interests of the child that you continue to provide that care.

All mandatory 50/50 custody laws do is ensure that men can fail to care for their children during the course of the marriage and still get half custody after the marriage, and ensure that they pay little to no child support to boot. And statistic after statistic show that men, by and large although not all of them, consistently fail to do equal childcare.

It's not about you. It's about the kid. The kid cares about being clothed, fed, sheltered and love. The kid does not care about doctor's appointments. Your kid is not going to ask you about how many doctor's appointments you attended during their childhood.
If time is spent equally with both parents there is no need for child support.

It is your job as a parent to care about things that your child does not care about, including going to the doctor. You don't get to just do the fun stuff. It's not just about if time is spent equally, it's if the work of parenthood is done equally.

I am generally in favor of shared custody. I'm married, happily, in a equitable marriage (we both work, we both care for our kids including work and fun parts) and if god forbid we divorced, I would expect 50% custody. So this isn't personal to me. But posts like this make me think that those posters who are pessimistic about how it would work out in practice are right to be worried. You can't just decide you don't care about doctor's appointments and decide to opt out if you truly want to be an equal parent with the responsibilities of 50% custody. I think the original PP here is right: men who do 50% of the work before marriage should absolutely have shared custody. But if one parent is doing 90% of the work of the child, it's not in the best interest of the child to give 50% custody, at least not until the parent who hasn't been helping do the work demonstrates that he or she can do it. Otherwise you end up in the situations we hear about with kids with cavities because their teeth are never brushed, going to school dirty, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think its wonderful and should have been done many years ago. The elimination of child support would only be if the women had equal salaries.

+1. Even now when there is 50/50 custody child support is only awarded when the difference in salary is enough to warrant it, and things like health insurance, childcare, and uncovered medical are all split proportionally based on income (when salaries are equal, each parent pays 50%).

Granted, I tend to laugh a little when men (particularly white men) complain about the laws, because the laws were written, implemented, and interpreted in the courts by white men.They weren't written and passed to protect women or children, they were written by men, to further their interests. Child support wasn't enforceable until fairly recently either (the ability to track the location of someone ordered to pay came with the implementation of technology over the past 20 years or so), and now that it's enforceable I find it funny that men suddenly actually want responsibility for their children.

You realize that the men currently complaining are not the same men who wrote the laws, right? And, unless they are on their second set of children, they are also not the same men who often got away with skipping out on child support until a couple of decades ago?

They may not be the same men that wrote the laws, but given that the state legislatures and the US Congress are almost entirely made up of white men still, they can seek changing the laws - they have PLENTY of representation.

And as for them not being the same ones that skipped out on child support - that may be true, but I think not being able to skip support is a HUGE incentive to change the laws so that they can get out of paying child support.

That said, when there is a large discrepancy in earning power, child support is STILL ordered in 50/50 situations. And each parent is still ordered to pay for uncovered medical, proportionate amounts of health insurance premiums, and a proportionate amount of childcare. It's not going to "eliminate" child support altogether in most situations.

[Anonymous]

Child support is for the child. If you are looking to support the spouse after divorce, it is alimony. Don't mix the two.

Many Dad's like my husband would have been thrilled for primary custody.

Don't things like being the primary shopper and doing other basic tasks does not make you the primary parent. My husband has never been a shopper. I take care of it for everyone, including him. He is just as capable as I am, but its easier for me to just get him and the kids clothing if I am out shopping as none of them like to go.

Child support is not a huge incentive for why the laws need changed. They need to be changed to allow Dads who are good parents and want to parent their children to have that opportunity. If you want your boys to become men who care for their kids, they need that example. If you want daughters to see that men can and will take care of their children, your daughters need that example too. Having every other week visits is not the same as parenting. Those same CP then complain about the lack of involvement in their child's life by the other parent and complain about the workload of being the sole parent. You cannot have it both ways. Kids benefits from having their Dad's involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree custody should be 50/50, if that is how childcare is split during the marriage. But why should the parent, who has worked FT, and done 90 percent of the childcare and 100 percent of the household tasks during the marriage then lose the lion’s share of custody in the divorce?

That parent is already at a disadvantage economically, as he or she has probably taken a lower-paying job in order to have the flexibility needed to be the default parent.

Under our current system, all men need to do to ensure 50% custody during divorce is to make sure they do 50% of the childcare and household admin during the marriage. Take your child to daycare or school 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the doctor appointments. Buy children's clothing 50% of the time. Do carpool 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the parent/teacher meetings.

The current standard for custody of children in many states is "best interest of the child." If you do 50% of the care of your child during the entirety of the marriage, then it will be in the best interests of the child that you continue to provide that care.

All mandatory 50/50 custody laws do is ensure that men can fail to care for their children during the course of the marriage and still get half custody after the marriage, and ensure that they pay little to no child support to boot. And statistic after statistic show that men, by and large although not all of them, consistently fail to do equal childcare.

It's not about you. It's about the kid. The kid cares about being clothed, fed, sheltered and love. The kid does not care about doctor's appointments. Your kid is not going to ask you about how many doctor's appointments you attended during their childhood.
If time is spent equally with both parents there is no need for child support.

I agree, it's not about me; it's about whether the parents have demonstrated that they are capable of caring for the child. Doctor's appointments are part of care of a child. I agree with you that kids don't care who does it, but it can be a significant part of raising kids. If one parent declines to participate in this aspect of child rearing pre-divorce, then it becomes questionable in divorce whether it is in the best interests of the child to provide 50% custody to a parent who did 0% of the healthcare. My kids have been to the ER, broken limbs, gotten concussions and had a variety of medical issues. Guess who took them to all appointments, followed up on treatment, stayed home with them when they couldn't go to school, picked up meds, made sure they took meds, etc.? For whatever reason my exDH was not interested in or capable of participating in this aspect of parenting. As a result of his pre-divorce parenting or lack thereof, it was not in the best interests of the children that he get 50% custody.

Believe me, kids may not care who does health care, but they DO care that someone does it. Missed meds, improperly administered therapy, chronic conditions that worsen unnecessarily, and a parent who can't figure their way thru medical care choices - kids feel the effect of that.

I 100% agree that kids don't care which parent provides any one of the million aspects of parenting. But, if you aren't doing 50% of the care before divorce, it's not in the best interests of the child that you be given 50% custody after divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree custody should be 50/50, if that is how childcare is split during the marriage. But why should the parent, who has worked FT, and done 90 percent of the childcare and 100 percent of the household tasks during the marriage then lose the lion’s share of custody in the divorce?

That parent is already at a disadvantage economically, as he or she has probably taken a lower-paying job in order to have the flexibility needed to be the default parent.

Under our current system, all men need to do to ensure 50% custody during divorce is to make sure they do 50% of the childcare and household admin during the marriage. Take your child to daycare or school 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the doctor appointments. Buy children's clothing 50% of the time. Do carpool 50% of the time. Go to 50% of the parent/teacher meetings.

The current standard for custody of children in many states is "best interest of the child." If you do 50% of the care of your child during the entirety of the marriage, then it will be in the best interests of the child that you continue to provide that care.

All mandatory 50/50 custody laws do is ensure that men can fail to care for their children during the course of the marriage and still get half custody after the marriage, and ensure that they pay little to no child support to boot. And statistic after statistic show that men, by and large although not all of them, consistently fail to do equal childcare.

It's not about you. It's about the kid. The kid cares about being clothed, fed, sheltered and love. The kid does not care about doctor's appointments. Your kid is not going to ask you about how many doctor's appointments you attended during their childhood.
If time is spent equally with both parents there is no need for child support.

I agree, it's not about me; it's about whether the parents have demonstrated that they are capable of caring for the child. Doctor's appointments are part of care of a child. I agree with you that kids don't care who does it, but it can be a significant part of raising kids. If one parent declines to participate in this aspect of child rearing pre-divorce, then it becomes questionable in divorce whether it is in the best interests of the child to provide 50% custody to a parent who did 0% of the healthcare. My kids have been to the ER, broken limbs, gotten concussions and had a variety of medical issues. Guess who took them to all appointments, followed up on treatment, stayed home with them when they couldn't go to school, picked up meds, made sure they took meds, etc.? For whatever reason my exDH was not interested in or capable of participating in this aspect of parenting. As a result of his pre-divorce parenting or lack thereof, it was not in the best interests of the children that he get 50% custody.

Believe me, kids may not care who does health care, but they DO care that someone does it. Missed meds, improperly administered therapy, chronic conditions that worsen unnecessarily, and a parent who can't figure their way thru medical care choices - kids feel the effect of that.

I 100% agree that kids don't care which parent provides any one of the million aspects of parenting. But, if you aren't doing 50% of the care before divorce, it's not in the best interests of the child that you be given 50% custody after divorce.

You just want to se your kid to hurt your ex. You want to play the martr to strok your ego. 50//50 is becoming the norm and bitter people like yourself will have to get over it.

[Anonymous]

My ex-husband and I filed joint legal and physical custody when we divorced almost 8 years ago. We did this in case anything came up in the future and one or more of the kids wanted to live with the other parent. It came in handy last spring when my daughter was on suicide watch because of problems she was having at school, and we decided to let her live with her dad and change schools. It's been more than 6 months since our decision, and we couldn't be happier with the results. She's off her meds, isn't suicidal, and she's happy. We did not have to go to court to change custody. It's really easy if you do it this way.