50/50 not the norm nationwide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for kids

It's actually healthy for kids to spend time with both parents regularly. It's also presumed in many if not most states. OP didn't say what state they're in, and I feel like some of the story there may be missing.

OP describes a near 50-50 arrangement but one that keeps the kids in one home during the school week.

I do not feel the OP is providing all the info on the decision between schools. It's easy to say "oh the schools in the other district aren't as good." What does that really mean though? That's a deeply subjective metric and a judge isn't going to sit there and compare test scores and AP program availability at the feeder HS -- that isn't the judge's job thankfully. Rather it's going to turn on things like proximity of the homes to the schools and what the commute looks like and how stable the situation is.

If the ex came in and said "look we are moving to a home close to the elementary and middle school where the kids can walk AND their cousins are already at these schools AND my mom lives up the street and will be able to help with after school care plus is home during the day in case anything comes up and can provide childcare on days when school is closed or canceled" that is all really compelling. If OP situation is "well the kids already attend this school but it's a car commute daily and I will be at work 45 minutes from the school every day and I have no childcare arrangements set up to help" that is a lot less compelling.

Note that OP's plan to keep the kids in the school where they are hinged on his ex staying and renting in that school district. This raises a question as to whether he expects the ex to be providing the backup childcare needed. If that's the case that's going to sway the judge to letting the parent who is going to have primary weekday childcare responsibility decide where the kids go to school within reason.

And agree with the PP who mentioned that with kids this age the judge may have interviewed them and taken their preferences into account.

I also think it's odd that OP is worried the kids won't have a good relationship with him or wondering if his son can choose to come live with OP when he's older -- it sounds like the kids WILL be living with him a lot. At least 2 days a week on the weekend (and potentially including Friday night and Monday morning plus half the summer and most holidays. That's a lot of time together. If the issue is wanting plenty of time with his kids it sounds like he got it -- there is nothing about that arrangement that makes me think he's likely to be estranged or replaced by the ex meeting someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for kids

Agree. So disruptive and destabilizing.

Doing the school week at one place is better than all tha 4-4-2-2 krap.

And weekends at that age are for homework, sports, socializing with friends.

+1

My DD’s BFF (14) is in a situation like this- she switches homes every day or every other day and she hates it. Loves both of her parents and has a good setup in both homes (from what I can tell) but it is so stressful for her. She complains to DD about it all the time. Her dad lives near school (and the girl has been in this district since K) but mom lives 30-40min away. Not sure why. She has to wake up extremely early for the commute to school when she is at her mom’s and social life is more limited when she is staying there because of the drive. Also lots of angst about leaving xyz (clothes and personal items, textbook etc) at this or that house. I often wonder why she doesn’t at least stay at her dad’s Mon-Thur or something to make things easier.

Yes one of our kids' friends has this issue as well. Same issue with one parent living close to the school and the other living 30-40 minutes away for reasons I have never understood. Instead of switching every day she and her brother switch weekly. Which in theory is at least less destabilizing than daily change. But it sucks for the kids a lot. It's very hard for them to make plans with friends because unless it's planned weeks in advance it's impossible to get communication from both parents to get plans approved and rides arranged.

I think divorce is hard no matter what though. The schedule OP describes would also suck because the kids will be in a different area on the weekends which is going to make activities and friendships hard especially as they get older. The parents should honestly have just figured out a compromise that enables them to live closer together and near the same schools. It's the right thing for the kids. But absent an abuse situation people get divorced to better meet their own needs not those of their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for kids

It's actually healthy for kids to spend time with both parents regularly. It's also presumed in many if not most states. OP didn't say what state they're in, and I feel like some of the story there may be missing.

Stop misreading the post. Pp is right. 50 50 is very hard. No one said no time but 50 50 means the kid has no permanent home. Would you want to move your life every week or multiple times a week??

No misreading here, thanks for your concern.

The child has a permanent home with both parents.

[Anonymous]

You got a lot of time with your kids. Concentrate on the time you have. Those are big kids. They are able to tell the judge what they want in no time if you two can't figure out what's best for them.
Not convinced at all that the school is lower quality and that being near family is not a good thing. Neither was the judge.
I got 50/50, but haven't seen the kid more than 10 days out of a year. What's on paper versus how it ends up, are two different things.
I got so much crap from family, co-workers and even ex-bf for not having my child more often.
The pressure is real.
Kids don't want to see the fighting. They don't count the days they are with one parent or another. They want stability and me letting them go, was the stability.
Ex was never going to let up while divorcing.
I have great relationship with my kid. Ex chilled out and started to respect the child's wishes when he was 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the judge thought the parent who cared enough to have a lawyer was more invested in the children’s well being than the one who didn’t?

We don’t know anything about anything.

If the mother proved she was the primary and default parent (whilst working fulltime or it), for 13 years and the father was definitely not, then that is the stability factor.

Either way the kids better have high executive functioning skills because shlepping everything to Dads house for the weekend and apparently hanging out and hour away from their new obligations is no small task.

[Anonymous]

For all we knew Dad just wanted to keep the cheap house and assume the low mortgage rate. Thats his real motivation.

[Anonymous]

Who wants to see their parents divorce, one move out, and continue to see and live in that same home?

Maybe a 2 yo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not in DC and our divorce recently concluded with ex wife being granted primary residential custody. I don't consume alcohol, I am not an abuser, and I have been fully involved with my kids. We couldn't agree with the choice of school district. We have 2 kids 13 and 10. I wanted the kids to remain in the same diastatic but my ex wife wanted them in a different lower quality school district where she grew up and her family lives. She argued that she needed to be near family and her lawyer made the case for her I guess because the judge sided with them. I did not get a lawyer because I could not afford one without going into debt. She was to get one with family support.

So the assumption on this forum that the courts always opt for 50/50 unless major issues may be through perhaps in VA and other states.

It seems to me that if you are the parent without a lawyer and you aren't willing to go in debt to get one, the other side is going to get their way.

The kids will stay with her during school days and I will have them weekends and the majority of holidays. During the summer we will have them 50/50.

However the fact that the judge felt that simply because she wanted the kids in the district of her choice, it was the best interest of the children makes it hard to believe that it wasn't a biased decision.

At what age can kids opt to be with one parent mostly? When my son turns 16 can he choose to stay with me instead?

No cheating, no alcohol abuse, no financial neglect. I know some people will quick to use one of these as the reason that it was the right decision. The marriage felt apart because she repeatedly refused to seek individual therapy for being bipolar and as a result was unable to regulate her emotions throughout our marriage.

Why didn’t you mediate Op?

90% of divorces are mediated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, he doesn't get the choice and it was horrible to pull them out and move them but that's what happens. You should have stayed married till the youngest was 18.

What a disgusting response here! 😠

No one should have to remain in an unhappy marriage in this day + age!!

Plus if you read OP’s post - he says his ex-wife was bipolar.
Since she wasn’t being effectively treated for it > I can only imagine how hellish living w/someone who has that disease can be.

OP, I am so sorry that you have to experience all of this.

It is wholly unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he doesn't get the choice and it was horrible to pull them out and move them but that's what happens. You should have stayed married till the youngest was 18.

What a disgusting response here! 😠

No one should have to remain in an unhappy marriage in this day + age!!

Plus if you read OP’s post - he says his ex-wife was bipolar.
Since she wasn’t being effectively treated for it > I can only imagine how hellish living w/someone who has that disease can be.

OP, I am so sorry that you have to experience all of this.

It is wholly unfair.

Yes it’s unfair but as a man it’s often the only way you can maintain a relationship with the kids. Be real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for kids

It's actually healthy for kids to spend time with both parents regularly. It's also presumed in many if not most states. OP didn't say what state they're in, and I feel like some of the story there may be missing.

Stop misreading the post. Pp is right. 50 50 is very hard. No one said no time but 50 50 means the kid has no permanent home. Would you want to move your life every week or multiple times a week??

No misreading here, thanks for your concern.

The child has a permanent home with both parents.

You are wrong here and frankly sick in the head to already be thinking how to destabilize a situation. I can only assume you have a personality disorder as most men who act like you do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not in DC and our divorce recently concluded with ex wife being granted primary residential custody. I don't consume alcohol, I am not an abuser, and I have been fully involved with my kids. We couldn't agree with the choice of school district. We have 2 kids 13 and 10. I wanted the kids to remain in the same diastatic but my ex wife wanted them in a different lower quality school district where she grew up and her family lives. She argued that she needed to be near family and her lawyer made the case for her I guess because the judge sided with them. I did not get a lawyer because I could not afford one without going into debt. She was to get one with family support.

So the assumption on this forum that the courts always opt for 50/50 unless major issues may be through perhaps in VA and other states.

It seems to me that if you are the parent without a lawyer and you aren't willing to go in debt to get one, the other side is going to get their way.

The kids will stay with her during school days and I will have them weekends and the majority of holidays. During the summer we will have them 50/50.

However the fact that the judge felt that simply because she wanted the kids in the district of her choice, it was the best interest of the children makes it hard to believe that it wasn't a biased decision.

At what age can kids opt to be with one parent mostly? When my son turns 16 can he choose to stay with me instead?

No cheating, no alcohol abuse, no financial neglect. I know some people will quick to use one of these as the reason that it was the right decision. The marriage felt apart because she repeatedly refused to seek individual therapy for being bipolar and as a result was unable to regulate her emotions throughout our marriage.

Why didn’t you mediate Op?

90% of divorces are mediated.

Likely because he is mentally disordered himself. Litigated divorces often involve personality disordered parents. There are stats on this. Mentally healthy people choose mediation.

[Anonymous]

Move to the other school district and ask for more time during the week. That feels like a very small concession to make if you’re unhappy with the schedule.

[Anonymous]

So OP wanted to punish her with divorce for refusing to change and then he got spanked by the judge? He must have thought he was going to walk in there, convince them it was all her fault, and he was the best husband and father who ever lived and it all fell apart. With no lawyer as well. OP probably thought he was going to win it all. Makes you wonder what really happened in this marriage. OP is not the hero he seems to think he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you guys have close to 50-50 in terms of time actually.

I get why you are upset about the school issue but I can see it from both sides. If moving to the other school district will give kids extra stability in the form of as n extended family network, there's an argument it's in their best interest. The judge is not going to look at school quality unless there's a safety concern-- way too subjective.

The real issue here is that you and your ex couldn't agree on the school issue and forced it to the judge. That's your collective failure. I see from your perspective why you want them to stay in the current district but we're there issues with things like your ex affording housing there or continuity if childcare if the kids are going back and forth between two houses with working single parents and no family support? Did you try to work out a compromise or did you both dig your heels in?

Judges don't want to make decisions like that and their preference is always for the parents to figure it out while working together to come up with a satisfactory solution. But if you don't, yes there's the risk that the judge's resolution won't be exactly what you want

Next time try to work it out. This is the reality of divorce with kids.

OP here. She is incredibly stubborn. I knew this before marrying her I overlook that red flag. So I do blame myself but oh well. With tried mediation and she left the zoom call before the first session ended
At that point the mediator told me we had to go to court.

We were renting in the school district and rent is affordable here. So there was no reason for her to uproot them. None.

I didn't go into debt because out of spite she would have actually gone into a million dollar debt of needed just to score some kind of "victory". If I had taken a lawyer I think the cost would have been too much.

I don't necessarily believe it was a biased decision in favour of the mother, but the court (judge) I felt put too much weight on what the mother (though her lawyer) felt was the right decision to make.

I am terrified and sad that I may end up being less closed to my kids because I won't see them most days during the school year. And when she starts dating again it's very possible that man will see my kids more than me. Unfortunately there is a wrong assumption that men (sadly we get all lumped in the same bag) drift away from their kids after divorce.

For now I am looking for a better job. With the free time I now have I am taking additional training..once I get a better job I will take her to court to revise the custody schedule.

The reality remains you likely would have had a better outcome with a lawyer of your own.

When I got divorced the best advice I received was to negotiate the terms like it was the rest of my life. Because it was.