50/50 is terrible for kids! Why does this nonsense persist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

So, why don't you tell us what's wrong with you that you spend your time and energy worrying about other people's kids? Are you medicated? Going to therapy? How did it affect your children? Do they still talk to you? Can your husband stand you?

Seriously this.

Nice try. Kids are happy and healthy and we are all together now on a weekend winter getaway.

I read these boards regularly though, and if anyone who is honest can see the devastating effects of divorce and how the new fad of 50/50 tries to paper over the effects.

Like parents having to force their teens to spend time with dad instead of being at sports practice or with their friends. Can you not see how those parents are selfish?

And, yet, things are so good and you are here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

Your social life shouldn't have trumped your relationship with your dad. I am sorry for your Dad. I am glad he kept trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

Right! So like the above poster said, ideally your dad should have worked out a system that you still were able to see him but get in your social time. It didn't sound like that happened and I am sorry but allowing a kid to just pick friends over parents is a recipe for disaster.

Usually, visits are twice a month for 2 days so that is four days in total. There are plenty of other days in the month for kids to get their social time in.

That poster sounds selfish and a spoiled brat. I hope Dad stopped the financial support at 18 if she or he refused contact.

In my case visitations were for the entirety of all of my school breaks including summer because of the fact that my father decided to move an 8 hour drive away from my mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: My exdh and I have 50/50. My dc have two homes and are not, in fact, vagabonds. They only carry their school backpack daily (just like kids who live at one home).

Dc seem happy and look forward to the time with each parent. With our work/school schedules, each parent sees the dc most days-it's not like they disappear into a black hole when not with the parent.

It probably does help that we live just blocks apart, it's easy to grab something if needed and we get along well enough to go to practices, events, ect for our dc. My dc do not want to go long times without seeing both parents.

This is similar to the two families I know where 50:50 works really well. They live close to together and often during the week mom is still taking kid 1 to their sport and dad is taking kid 2 to their sport type thing. Both are still involved throughout the week. Also as the kids got older, while they mostly still sleep at the right 50:50 house, if they need homework help they might stop by one house or if someone just made fresh brownies, they swing by that house. Parents (and step parents) get along and there is no animosity about where the kids want to be. For one stretch, my friend's 13 year old daughter just didn't want to sleep at her dads. Just a teen thing and so for 3 months, she didn't, Dad still saw her lots but she went to moms every night. They adapted and then she got over that stage and started staying at dads again. Flexibility is key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

Your social life shouldn't have trumped your relationship with your dad. I am sorry for your Dad. I am glad he kept trying.

I would say it was the mom and dad's decision to divorce that trumped the relationship with dad, not the child's natural desire to maintain friendships outside the home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

No, parent/family should come first. If the mother moves away, and takes the kid, it's not the father's fault the child has to travel to him. These kids have two homes and two families. Social lives should not be the priority over family. You are 100% parental alienation. And, if you don't kids should be forced to see their parents, baring no abuse or neglect documented by CPS, then why should that parent financially support them. You are basically terminating that parent's rights. If you are the parent not wanting visits and think the other parent is a bother, then you should fully also financially support your kid as they really only have one parent.

Family did not come first in parents' decision to divorce. Why is it up to thr children to accommodate the parents who decided to break up the home/ move away/ want to have a new partner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

No, parent/family should come first. If the mother moves away, and takes the kid, it's not the father's fault the child has to travel to him. These kids have two homes and two families. Social lives should not be the priority over family. You are 100% parental alienation. And, if you don't kids should be forced to see their parents, baring no abuse or neglect documented by CPS, then why should that parent financially support them. You are basically terminating that parent's rights. If you are the parent not wanting visits and think the other parent is a bother, then you should fully also financially support your kid as they really only have one parent.

It's also not the child fault so why should they be essentially punished for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

NP--- me too. I didn't have a relationship with my father when he lived in the house. Why would I have one with him when he was out of the house? The only thing having to spend time at his house did was create resentment and anger towards him.

[Anonymous]

OK. The parent that moves away is different than the parent who is close(ish) and could accommodate the social life of a teenager on their time. Different scenario. My exDH doesn't live in child's school district but isn't so far that he can't come in to do carpools for social stuff. Fortunately he does and my child hasn't complained. Quite frankly, child welcomes the break from social engagements with an easy excuse of "Ill be at dad's house".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

So, why don't you tell us what's wrong with you that you spend your time and energy worrying about other people's kids? Are you medicated? Going to therapy? How did it affect your children? Do they still talk to you? Can your husband stand you?

Seriously this.

I read these boards regularly though, and if anyone who is honest can see the devastating effects of divorce and how the new fad of 50/50 tries to paper over the effects.

Are you posting from 1997 or something? 50/50 has been around for a couple decades and has been presumed in my state, for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

So, why don't you tell us what's wrong with you that you spend your time and energy worrying about other people's kids? Are you medicated? Going to therapy? How did it affect your children? Do they still talk to you? Can your husband stand you?

Seriously this.

I read these boards regularly though, and if anyone who is honest can see the devastating effects of divorce and how the new fad of 50/50 tries to paper over the effects.

Are you posting from 1997 or something? 50/50 has been around for a couple decades and has been presumed in my state, for many years.

Interesting. I am in the Midwest, and don't know anyone doing 50-50. It's not so common around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: My exdh and I have 50/50. My dc have two homes and are not, in fact, vagabonds. They only carry their school backpack daily (just like kids who live at one home).

Dc seem happy and look forward to the time with each parent. With our work/school schedules, each parent sees the dc most days-it's not like they disappear into a black hole when not with the parent.

It probably does help that we live just blocks apart, it's easy to grab something if needed and we get along well enough to go to practices, events, ect for our dc. My dc do not want to go long times without seeing both parents.

This is similar to the two families I know where 50:50 works really well. They live close to together and often during the week mom is still taking kid 1 to their sport and dad is taking kid 2 to their sport type thing. Both are still involved throughout the week. Also as the kids got older, while they mostly still sleep at the right 50:50 house, if they need homework help they might stop by one house or if someone just made fresh brownies, they swing by that house. Parents (and step parents) get along and there is no animosity about where the kids want to be. For one stretch, my friend's 13 year old daughter just didn't want to sleep at her dads. Just a teen thing and so for 3 months, she didn't, Dad still saw her lots but she went to moms every night. They adapted and then she got over that stage and started staying at dads again. Flexibility is key.

This is very similar to my arrangement with Ex-DH. We live 15 min apart. Kids are loved by me and step DD, my ex, and their step DM. It takes a village but the kids see four adults sitting together at sporting events, four adults sitting together for the choir concert, etc. We do 50/50 for where the kids sleep but pitch in when needed. My Ex-DH is a lawyer - if he's in court and the kids step mom has to cover 3 kids sports practices, my husband or I might give one of them a ride, and they do the same when we're busy. It's not a science, it's an art, and despite our hiccups over the years we are doing ok!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

So you have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP what is the alternative?

One home during the week and school year.

Other home during some weekends and summer.

50 -50 is for the guilty parents. If the parents cared at all about the kids they wouldn't put them through 50-50.

I'm a teacher, I see a lot of families.

What you propose, uprooting the child and going somewhere new for the summer is one of the worst arrangements. I can't imagine someone thinking it's better than 50/50.

The kids I see who have 50/50 generally do quite well.

? My kid goes to sleepaway camp for 7 weeks every summer and absolutely loves it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP what is the alternative?

One home during the week and school year.

Other home during some weekends and summer.

50 -50 is for the guilty parents. If the parents cared at all about the kids they wouldn't put them through 50-50.

I'm a teacher, I see a lot of families.

What you propose, uprooting the child and going somewhere new for the summer is one of the worst arrangements. I can't imagine someone thinking it's better than 50/50.

The kids I see who have 50/50 generally do quite well.

? My kid goes to sleepaway camp for 7 weeks every summer and absolutely loves it.

What does that have to to with custody?