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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, A dad can figure it out when he needs to.

[Anonymous]

^ Believe me I wish he could have figured it out and I wish it could have been 50/50. It would have been far less painful for the kids, and my career would not have been devastated.

But, the truth is, some people are just never able to put others first.

[Anonymous]

I think this is an interesting discussion. One aspect that isn’t much discussed on this chain is parenting differences. I think most fathers have a pretty different interaction with kids than most mothers. As a mom, I can find it very frustrating. I pick up my son, it’s 30° outside, he has a T-shirt and shorts on, and he’s trying to say that he’s cold but his teeth are chattering too much to get the words out. Or another example is that one weekend my son spent the entire weekend in the exact same clothes that I sent him to school with on the Thursday before.

I admit I am very torn. I think it’s important for children to have close relationships with both parents. I think when one parent has primary physical custody, it is very hard to have that close relationship with the other parent. I also think it’s great for kids to see that people can parent differently. But I’m worried that in our families case, the differences are harmful to our son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I think this is an interesting discussion. One aspect that isn’t much discussed on this chain is parenting differences. I think most fathers have a pretty different interaction with kids than most mothers. As a mom, I can find it very frustrating. I pick up my son, it’s 30° outside, he has a T-shirt and shorts on, and he’s trying to say that he’s cold but his teeth are chattering too much to get the words out. Or another example is that one weekend my son spent the entire weekend in the exact same clothes that I sent him to school with on the Thursday before.

I admit I am very torn. I think it’s important for children to have close relationships with both parents. I think when one parent has primary physical custody, it is very hard to have that close relationship with the other parent. I also think it’s great for kids to see that people can parent differently. But I’m worried that in our families case, the differences are harmful to our son.

What you are describing is not "parenting differences," it is "neglectful parenting."

My DC's father regularly forgets to care for them in different ways (having appropriate food in the house when they visit, dropping visitation frequently, not attending to school meetings and events or helping or even making time for homework, making them sleep on the sofa or inflatable bed at his house even though he could afford to buy beds for them, forgetting to feed them, clothing them inappropriately, not being able to care for them properly when sick, etc.) Basically, as the DC's have grown older, they have recognized that he is a neglectful parent and this is hurtful to them and has damaged their relationship with him.

It's not a parenting difference. It's neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I think this is an interesting discussion. One aspect that isn’t much discussed on this chain is parenting differences. I think most fathers have a pretty different interaction with kids than most mothers. As a mom, I can find it very frustrating. I pick up my son, it’s 30° outside, he has a T-shirt and shorts on, and he’s trying to say that he’s cold but his teeth are chattering too much to get the words out. Or another example is that one weekend my son spent the entire weekend in the exact same clothes that I sent him to school with on the Thursday before.

I admit I am very torn. I think it’s important for children to have close relationships with both parents. I think when one parent has primary physical custody, it is very hard to have that close relationship with the other parent. I also think it’s great for kids to see that people can parent differently. But I’m worried that in our families case, the differences are harmful to our son.

Maybe son choose the clothing, not Dad. I know my son will wear the same few things if they are washed/clean/in his drawer, even if I try to rotate them at the bottom. Or, maybe son choose t-shirt and shorts on. Dad did not feel like arguing. That is really petty to worry about the clothing. Maybe send a few extra outfits and an extra coat to leave there. That isn't going to harm your son and its far more harmful to take away his father from him.

[Anonymous]

I've gone through a toxic divorce from an abusive but very charming charismatic man. He's used the system to alienated my children and punish me for having a happy successful life.

More and more data shows that the calculating and cruel often abusive party ends up winning these cases most of the time and takes children from from the involved caring parent. Here's a report from across states:

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html


50/50 and capped child support (based on income ratio) is the only possible just system. Steep financial penalties for contempt. Divorce is a new life, not a residue of the marriage. Even if they live out of state, summers and holidays can be used to make up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've gone through a toxic divorce from an abusive but very charming charismatic man. He's used the system to alienated my children and punish me for having a happy successful life.

More and more data shows that the calculating and cruel often abusive party ends up winning these cases most of the time and takes children from from the involved caring parent. Here's a report from across states:

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html


50/50 and capped child support (based on income ratio) is the only possible just system. Steep financial penalties for contempt. Divorce is a new life, not a residue of the marriage. Even if they live out of state, summers and holidays can be used to make up.

Very few judges, at least in our experience, will go against the CP in terms of visitation or anything. There are some that do, but usually they go with what is easy. It would be nice for financial penalties for contempt, especially for visitation but then one would argue your are hurting the kids by making the CP pay. We couldn't get the judge to refund an overpayment that the CP took in a really shady way (Dad had retirement plus regular income and she filed for a garnishment on both and got paid double/out of both) and judge refused to force her to pay back the money. Nor, did they forcer CP to pay back for the plane tickets she refused to allow child to come after agreeing. They didn't even force her to pay her share when she said no.

[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.

Woman here: stfu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry but no. DH and I both took maternity and paternity leave. Choose an equal marriage. Women and men should each provide for their own households and own expenses after marriage. Kid's expenses should be split equally. This isn't the 1950s, women have the ability to make the same amount as men.

It depends on what is going on in your home. My husband, if I was working would out earn me buy 3-4 times. When we got married we were equal but he was in a career with upward progression and has done vey well. On the other hand, we have a SN child who needed a lot of therapies and my salary would barely cover a nanny and I hated my job so he encouraged me to quit (glad he did as I would not have on my own). Then, his mom started to need full time care so she lived with us for a year and then went to a nursing home but I am still heavily involved... now my parents. Child still needs therapies and after school activities. 1-3 days a week I'm with his mom or one of my parents who need help. I don't have the luxury of working right now. Husband has a flexible enough job but also travels a week a month or so (not told about when hired). Ideally, I could get a job, but then who is going to pick up some of the slack as I'd have to start all over in my career making 1/2 of what I did. Its sometimes a bunch of bad choices. It may not be the 1950's but there are reasons for one parent to stay home and its not as easy as you make it.

That bold sentence undercuts the rest of what you wrote.

I don't have the luxury of working. I have to be at the nursing home a few times a week, get my child to the therapy appointments, etc. It would cost me more to pay someone to do everything I do than I would earn working so working right now would be a luxury. I cannot just abandon his mom, nor can I stop doing for my child who needs these therapies in order to try to catch up.

LOL. Some people have to work regardless, even if all those other things are going on too. My partner and I could never afford everything if we didn't both work, so if one of our parents got sick we would both still be working and dealing with that too. Luxury of working? I hope you know just how privileged you are, and of course that your husband never leaves you.....

. So, you have no parents needing help and no special needs children. So, how is your situation like the PPs?

[Anonymous]

But why are women even marrying men who can't do 50% in the first place? Are they making that much money that you just don't care? I can't believe there are this many men who only do 10% of child rearing. The men I see are incredibly hands on dads and I can't believe they'd get less than shared custody in a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Custody should be 50/50 regardless of the labor split during marriage. Divorce is a new animal. Just as many SAHM have to get a job after divorce, their ex should have to start parenting. Unless there's a fixed standardized law, there'll be lots of abuses and injustices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But why are women even marrying men who can't do 50% in the first place? Are they making that much money that you just don't care? I can't believe there are this many men who only do 10% of child rearing. The men I see are incredibly hands on dads and I can't believe they'd get less than shared custody in a divorce.

In my case, I didn’t realize how incapable my XH was until we were married and our responsibilities increased and some things simply could not be hidden or denied. Something always had to give with him. If it wasn’t work being neglected, it was parenting, or our relationship, or his individual needs. He never quite had to balance things before - he thought he did well comparative to the dysfunction he had come from - and I didn’t realize how little capacity he had to manage being a well functioning adult that could optimize production in each area of life. He still struggles with that. Capability is one thing, capacity is another. I think roles in Marriage varying around that are pretty common though. Ideally you two complement each other and build capacity together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But why are women even marrying men who can't do 50% in the first place? Are they making that much money that you just don't care? I can't believe there are this many men who only do 10% of child rearing. The men I see are incredibly hands on dads and I can't believe they'd get less than shared custody in a divorce.

+1, most women like to complain about how little their husbands do but in reality they are doing equal. Worst complainers are those with nannies who do most of the bulk of the work .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why are women even marrying men who can't do 50% in the first place? Are they making that much money that you just don't care? I can't believe there are this many men who only do 10% of child rearing. The men I see are incredibly hands on dads and I can't believe they'd get less than shared custody in a divorce.

In my case, I didn’t realize how incapable my XH was until we were married and our responsibilities increased and some things simply could not be hidden or denied. Something always had to give with him. If it wasn’t work being neglected, it was parenting, or our relationship, or his individual needs. He never quite had to balance things before - he thought he did well comparative to the dysfunction he had come from - and I didn’t realize how little capacity he had to manage being a well functioning adult that could optimize production in each area of life. He still struggles with that. Capability is one thing, capacity is another. I think roles in Marriage varying around that are pretty common though. Ideally you two complement each other and build capacity together.

I don't get how you didn't see that when you were dating. That makes no sense to me.

[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.

Sounds like you married a chump, good job!