If you divorce when kids are teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can be an involved parent -- one to regularly sees and talks to your children, one who shows up for their events/coaches the team/throws the bday parties, makes them dinner, etc. etc. WITHOUT demanding that the children sleep at your house exactly 50% of the time.

You seem to be setting up a false choice between one parent getting the kids all the time (with dad getting nothing) vs. kids having to shuttle between two homes every few days or every week.

Thankfully, there are judges who consider what it would be like for kids not to have a primary home. For those who do not see 50/50 custody as ideal, it's not about castigating the father as inferior. It's not about trying turn the child against the other parent. It's not about the $$. It's about putting yourself in the position of the child and imagining how it would be month after month after month to live a few days in one house and then a few days in another house and then back to the first house and then back to the other house and on and on.

I could see it working better if the parents two homes were a block away -- at least then, the kid would have the same neighborhood, the same bus, the same bus stop (for getting off at the right point), the same friends, the same familiarity. And the kid could easily go back to the other house to get X, Y, or Z. It still would be difficult to remember where you left your trumpet or your earbuds or your winter coat.

It isn't necessarily "fair" for one parent to have the kids 75% of the time, but it's not about being fair to the parents. It's about making life livable for the kids. I know I would not enjoy living in two different households and switching every week. It would make me feel like my life has gotten harder just b/c my parents decided they don't want to be married anymore. There is no way this is ideal for the kids.

There are ways to create close relationships without having the kids commuting 50/50 to each parent.

And you, personally, agreed to be the 25% parent for the good of the kids, right?

Or are you not even divorced and are just babbling theoretically about something you know nothing about directly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can be an involved parent -- one to regularly sees and talks to your children, one who shows up for their events/coaches the team/throws the bday parties, makes them dinner, etc. etc. WITHOUT demanding that the children sleep at your house exactly 50% of the time.

You seem to be setting up a false choice between one parent getting the kids all the time (with dad getting nothing) vs. kids having to shuttle between two homes every few days or every week.

Thankfully, there are judges who consider what it would be like for kids not to have a primary home. For those who do not see 50/50 custody as ideal, it's not about castigating the father as inferior. It's not about trying turn the child against the other parent. It's not about the $$. It's about putting yourself in the position of the child and imagining how it would be month after month after month to live a few days in one house and then a few days in another house and then back to the first house and then back to the other house and on and on.

I could see it working better if the parents two homes were a block away -- at least then, the kid would have the same neighborhood, the same bus, the same bus stop (for getting off at the right point), the same friends, the same familiarity. And the kid could easily go back to the other house to get X, Y, or Z. It still would be difficult to remember where you left your trumpet or your earbuds or your winter coat.

It isn't necessarily "fair" for one parent to have the kids 75% of the time, but it's not about being fair to the parents. It's about making life livable for the kids. I know I would not enjoy living in two different households and switching every week. It would make me feel like my life has gotten harder just b/c my parents decided they don't want to be married anymore. There is no way this is ideal for the kids.

There are ways to create close relationships without having the kids commuting 50/50 to each parent.

If you think kids should not switch homes and only live with one parent, you should make the sacrifice to not having your kids sleep at your home. You cannot have the same relationship with a child you see once a week and every other weekend vs. actively parenting. Kids also do not feel a part of that parent's life and at some point, through time, that bond is lost with the lack of relationship.

Worst case, kids have two sets of everything. Not that big of a deal - two trumpets, two sets of ear phones and spare coats so if they are left its no big deal.

You can be involved in the child's life without having them sleep at your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can be an involved parent -- one to regularly sees and talks to your children, one who shows up for their events/coaches the team/throws the bday parties, makes them dinner, etc. etc. WITHOUT demanding that the children sleep at your house exactly 50% of the time.

You seem to be setting up a false choice between one parent getting the kids all the time (with dad getting nothing) vs. kids having to shuttle between two homes every few days or every week.

Thankfully, there are judges who consider what it would be like for kids not to have a primary home. For those who do not see 50/50 custody as ideal, it's not about castigating the father as inferior. It's not about trying turn the child against the other parent. It's not about the $$. It's about putting yourself in the position of the child and imagining how it would be month after month after month to live a few days in one house and then a few days in another house and then back to the first house and then back to the other house and on and on.

I could see it working better if the parents two homes were a block away -- at least then, the kid would have the same neighborhood, the same bus, the same bus stop (for getting off at the right point), the same friends, the same familiarity. And the kid could easily go back to the other house to get X, Y, or Z. It still would be difficult to remember where you left your trumpet or your earbuds or your winter coat.

It isn't necessarily "fair" for one parent to have the kids 75% of the time, but it's not about being fair to the parents. It's about making life livable for the kids. I know I would not enjoy living in two different households and switching every week. It would make me feel like my life has gotten harder just b/c my parents decided they don't want to be married anymore. There is no way this is ideal for the kids.

There are ways to create close relationships without having the kids commuting 50/50 to each parent.

If you think kids should not switch homes and only live with one parent, you should make the sacrifice to not having your kids sleep at your home. You cannot have the same relationship with a child you see once a week and every other weekend vs. actively parenting. Kids also do not feel a part of that parent's life and at some point, through time, that bond is lost with the lack of relationship.

Worst case, kids have two sets of everything. Not that big of a deal - two trumpets, two sets of ear phones and spare coats so if they are left its no big deal.

You can be involved in the child's life without having them sleep at your house.

Being involved is not the same thing as parenting but since you feel that way, they can sleep at the other parents house and you can just be involved. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess--and would hope--that neither your ex or your child will put your cheating in the past. You sound horrible.

Wow. As I mentioned above, I didn't have an affair. I'm curious why you think I sound so horrible?

I am a different poster and agree you sound awful. 50/50 is always crap for the kid. Your posts are all about you , and not paying child support seems to be your main goal.

I'm a NP and I disagree. 50/50 is not always crap for the kid and it often has nothing to do with child support, especially if both parents are successful working professionals. Many times 50/50 means that both parents maintain an equal part in the decision making and parenting of the child, it can mean that the weekly/monthly schedule is what works best for the child and not dictated by a court order that says every other weekend and Wednesday nights are for one parent. Additionally, when the child sees that both parents have a strong commitment to their well being - personally in the amount of time they spend together, the decisions they consider AND the money spent- they know they have two advocates and hopefully not adversaries.

I think it is hard to look at other people's situations and make a judgement. What sounds like it wouldn't work for you or your kid might work really well for another family in a different situation. I think the Dad sharing his experiences is saying that having a 50/50 arrangement helped his relationship with his child and allowed he and his ex to work through the arrangements in time. If his ex were given primary custody it probably wouldn't have evolved into such a working relationship.

[Anonymous]

All this bickering in this thread still forgets how the child feels. My DH went through a horrible divorce at 16 and it was SO bad. He called it the death or destruction of a family. The Mom was the home wrecker and left the door open but he chose his Dad, who unfortunately fell gravely ill, they lost their home and it was so bad. My DH barely made it through high school but he came back, finished college, and is doing well married to me for 19 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this bickering in this thread still forgets how the child feels. My DH went through a horrible divorce at 16 and it was SO bad. He called it the death or destruction of a family. The Mom was the home wrecker and left the door open but he chose his Dad, who unfortunately fell gravely ill, they lost their home and it was so bad. My DH barely made it through high school but he came back, finished college, and is doing well married to me for 19 years.

It doesn't sound like there was any custody scheme that would have fixed that situation.

If the parents are at each others throats it will be hell for the kids whether it is 50/50 or one has full custody and the other is a periodic visitor.

[Anonymous]

“If the parents are at each others throats it will be hell for the kids whether it is 50/50 or one has full custody and the other is a periodic visitor.”

Another option is for the parents to simply NOT act that way. Yes you spouse may drive you nuts or you have fallen out of love but short of abuse it is a choice how you respond to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can be an involved parent -- one to regularly sees and talks to your children, one who shows up for their events/coaches the team/throws the bday parties, makes them dinner, etc. etc. WITHOUT demanding that the children sleep at your house exactly 50% of the time.

You seem to be setting up a false choice between one parent getting the kids all the time (with dad getting nothing) vs. kids having to shuttle between two homes every few days or every week.

Thankfully, there are judges who consider what it would be like for kids not to have a primary home. For those who do not see 50/50 custody as ideal, it's not about castigating the father as inferior. It's not about trying turn the child against the other parent. It's not about the $$. It's about putting yourself in the position of the child and imagining how it would be month after month after month to live a few days in one house and then a few days in another house and then back to the first house and then back to the other house and on and on.

I could see it working better if the parents two homes were a block away -- at least then, the kid would have the same neighborhood, the same bus, the same bus stop (for getting off at the right point), the same friends, the same familiarity. And the kid could easily go back to the other house to get X, Y, or Z. It still would be difficult to remember where you left your trumpet or your earbuds or your winter coat.

It isn't necessarily "fair" for one parent to have the kids 75% of the time, but it's not about being fair to the parents. It's about making life livable for the kids. I know I would not enjoy living in two different households and switching every week. It would make me feel like my life has gotten harder just b/c my parents decided they don't want to be married anymore. There is no way this is ideal for the kids.

There are ways to create close relationships without having the kids commuting 50/50 to each parent.

And you, personally, agreed to be the 25% parent for the good of the kids, right?

Or are you not even divorced and are just babbling theoretically about something you know nothing about directly?

Or, like me, they could be the teenage kid whose.parents just divorced. NP, but above poster has just as valid a point as those who staunchly advocate for kids sleeping in 2 houses. FWIW my parents did it this way for various reasons and we were pretty grateful.

[Anonymous]

I’m in Maryland. My lawyers and XDH’s lawyers told us the judge would let teen DS choose which parent to live with, so that’s what we did. DS chose to live with me 100% of the time (I’m the mom). XDH didn’t contest the arrangement and met DS every week or two for brunch.

(Not relevant to OP’s question, but the only push-back from XDH was that he lied to friends and family that DS was splitting his time between us, and even tried to lie to his lawyer to get out of child support. But you’d better believe I pushed back on that.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in Maryland. My lawyers and XDH’s lawyers told us the judge would let teen DS choose which parent to live with, so that’s what we did. DS chose to live with me 100% of the time (I’m the mom). XDH didn’t contest the arrangement and met DS every week or two for brunch.

(Not relevant to OP’s question, but the only push-back from XDH was that he lied to friends and family that DS was splitting his time between us, and even tried to lie to his lawyer to get out of child support. But you’d better believe I pushed back on that.)

Your Ex is a shitty father and a shitty human being. That being the case, it's just as well he didn't want 50/50.

[Anonymous]

Judges know that if they don't give the teen's preferences some weight, they may become runaways. It's a balancing act -- in terms of how much weight a judge will give depending on the age of the teen, the reasoning of the teen, the history of the relationship, etc.

[Anonymous]

Letting the teenager choose who to live with is crappy and selfish. Forcing the poor kid to decide "do you love mommy or daddy best?" is despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sounds like you were a cheater / walked out on your family and then tried to force your kid to stay in contact. nice.

Nope. Sounds like a father determined to be a good, involved parent.

But you know what? Even cheaters can (and should) get 50/50 custody if they want it.

Agree. The lynchmob is already out.

Despite the cheating, unless there is gross parental negligence or one spouse is completely incapable of parenting alone, custody default should ALWAYS be 50-50. Otherwise, the kid(s) loses at the end of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Letting the teenager choose who to live with is crappy and selfish. Forcing the poor kid to decide "do you love mommy or daddy best?" is despicable.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Letting the teenager choose who to live with is crappy and selfish. Forcing the poor kid to decide "do you love mommy or daddy best?" is despicable.

+1

Not really. I had a choice between two horrible parents. I chose the less horrible one to live with. My mom was a martyr who would put me down all the time and my dad had a destructive narcissistic personality. My dad fortunately didn't want to pay child support so he kept his temper mostly under control until I graduated from college on scholarship.