If you divorce when kids are teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should switch between houses and let the kids stay in the family home.

I 100% agree. An apartment should be kept for thr parents and the kids stay in the family home. The only people who win in a divorce are the parents. The ends end up losing everything.

Additionally, I'm like the PP father. If I were in a divorce I'd bankrupt myself into an oblivion if that's what it takes to get 50/50.

I'd also never initiate a divorce when my kids are teens. What a great way to completely mindfu%k your kids.

And, whose going to pay for all this - keeping the house and apartments for each parent - most can barely afford to keep the house let alone two additional households.

You misunderstood- one apt and the parents go back and forth per the custody agreement - so not paying for two Apts or houses.

And when the parents remarry? Have other kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should switch between houses and let the kids stay in the family home.

I 100% agree. An apartment should be kept for thr parents and the kids stay in the family home. The only people who win in a divorce are the parents. The ends end up losing everything.

Additionally, I'm like the PP father. If I were in a divorce I'd bankrupt myself into an oblivion if that's what it takes to get 50/50.

I'd also never initiate a divorce when my kids are teens. What a great way to completely mindfu%k your kids.

And, whose going to pay for all this - keeping the house and apartments for each parent - most can barely afford to keep the house let alone two additional households.

You misunderstood- one apt and the parents go back and forth per the custody agreement - so not paying for two Apts or houses.

And when the parents remarry? Have other kids?

This, and then neither parent has their own space. Who cleans the apartment and turns it over for each parent? Who cleans the house and turns it over for the other parent?

That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why? Because I speak the hard truth?

I am not the one bankrupting myself to keep things "50/50." I married a great guy 30 plus years ago, so I have 100 percent access to our kids, who are about to launch into adulthood.

No wasting money to divorce lawyers -- instead it goes into family enrichment like vacations and college tuition funds. A much better use of family resources than Mr. 50/50.

Who you marry can make the biggest difference in your life. As Mr. 50/50 is finding out the hard way, crappy wife, crappy life.

hi

NP. You sound insufferable.

But yet, I am not divorced, and my kids aren't shuffled from house to house so things can be "50/50." They come from a happy home, not a brloken mess.

I get angry when adults are so selfish and don't put their children's well being above their own desires. Marriage can be hard work (although mine had been challenging only a few years out of the more than 30) and people give up too easily.

If one parent doesn't feel 50/50 is good for the kids, that parent needs to make the sacrifice of being the visiting parent and let the other parent have primary custody. Its the reality of divorce. You cannot say you do not agree with 50/50 but then demand 90/10 with the other parent being a visitor in the kids lives.

You can if one parrnt hadn't been 50/50 all along. If they have had a 95/5 parenting balance while married and suddenly the 5%parent wants 50/50...it's suddenly about the $.

At any rate, if it works for your situation to do 50/50 and the kids can manage it, then fine. I just think it would be placing the burden of the divorce on the kids. But every situation has multiple factors to consider.

The kids carry a huge burden already but having one parent cut out of their lives is only going to make it worse. Parenting is more than just running them to the doctor, activities and school. You cannot say a parent isn't doing an equal share if one parent is the main financial person who has a huge weight to carry and the other picks up the slack at home. They are equally parenting but in different ways.

You think if Mom is a SAH or part-time, and she goes full time that she's going to spend as much time with the kids, NO. If Dad cuts back his work hours, then Mom will lose alimony/child support money which is an issue. Usually when one parent/the woman wants full custody it is because of child support/alimony vs. best for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why? Because I speak the hard truth?

I am not the one bankrupting myself to keep things "50/50." I married a great guy 30 plus years ago, so I have 100 percent access to our kids, who are about to launch into adulthood.

No wasting money to divorce lawyers -- instead it goes into family enrichment like vacations and college tuition funds. A much better use of family resources than Mr. 50/50.

Who you marry can make the biggest difference in your life. As Mr. 50/50 is finding out the hard way, crappy wife, crappy life.

hi

NP. You sound insufferable.

But yet, I am not divorced, and my kids aren't shuffled from house to house so things can be "50/50." They come from a happy home, not a brloken mess.

I get angry when adults are so selfish and don't put their children's well being above their own desires. Marriage can be hard work (although mine had been challenging only a few years out of the more than 30) and people give up too easily.

If one parent doesn't feel 50/50 is good for the kids, that parent needs to make the sacrifice of being the visiting parent and let the other parent have primary custody. Its the reality of divorce. You cannot say you do not agree with 50/50 but then demand 90/10 with the other parent being a visitor in the kids lives.

You can if one parrnt hadn't been 50/50 all along. If they have had a 95/5 parenting balance while married and suddenly the 5%parent wants 50/50...it's suddenly about the $.

At any rate, if it works for your situation to do 50/50 and the kids can manage it, then fine. I just think it would be placing the burden of the divorce on the kids. But every situation has multiple factors to consider.

The kids carry a huge burden already but having one parent cut out of their lives is only going to make it worse. Parenting is more than just running them to the doctor, activities and school. You cannot say a parent isn't doing an equal share if one parent is the main financial person who has a huge weight to carry and the other picks up the slack at home. They are equally parenting but in different ways.

You think if Mom is a SAH or part-time, and she goes full time that she's going to spend as much time with the kids, NO. If Dad cuts back his work hours, then Mom will lose alimony/child support money which is an issue. Usually when one parent/the woman wants full custody it is because of child support/alimony vs. best for the kids.

If someone says "I think X, but your way is possible too..." you keep coming back to insults and insisting your way is right and anyone who says different is wrong. You are showing the type of thinking that leads to divorce -- "I am right and you are wrong." You leave no room for another opinion. You attack, attack, attack and insist you are right.

So, ok, enjoy that custody arrangement.... and best of luck on marriage #2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I got divorced when my D was 12-14ish. It was hellishly contentious and leading up to it [i]my D went through various periods of up to several months where she would not see or speak to me. [b]

However, I was adamant that we would have 50/50 custody and I simply told my ex and her counsel that I would accept nothing less. I said that without this I would fight in court until the very day D turned 18 and we would likely be bankrupt and possibly in deep debt for legal fees. I was willing to absolutely destroy our financial life over this and never wavered from making sure everyone knew that.

The reason I took this position was that I love my D and as far as I was concerned, my heart and door was always open. If she chose to not walk through and be in each other's lives, that was her choice (and frankly due to no small amount of her mother's influence).

I wanted the final judgement to be 50/50 and then I would deal with whatever the reality was after that. If my D refused to come see me then I would be patient and do what I could to heal the relationship because it would be on our terms. If there was a Court order that had skewed custody in it and denied equal time with both parents then I would not have the same chance.

My advice to anyone in a divorce proceeding and sorting out custody is to stand firm on 50/50 because it's in the best interest of the child to have the family (even in it's new divided form) work things out, not the Court System or Judge who looks at things for 20 minutes and makes a decision that will affects lives for years and years.

Why did your daughter not want to see or speak with you? I could never imagine my DCS (similar in age at the time) not wanting to see or speak with their father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note: The standard is "the best interests of the CHILD."

The standard is NOT "what is fair for the parents."

50/50 IS best for the children.

Not necessarily. I got off my career path to develop a flexible work plan that allowed me to work and be the primary caregiver. I was the caregiver when they were little, and now after school. I help w/ the homework, I take kids to lessons, I bring things to school, etc. It is not 50/50 in terms of contact time even if the overall investment is 50/50. DH's investment is more monetary, and mine is more caregiving. I make a lot less than DH because of our arrangement. If we ever divorced, 50/50 would not be a fair custody arrangement.

This is a married couple and not the same thing. 50/50 would be fair as you are making the choice to stay home and in order for him do that is for him to work more to cover the income loss/keep your lifestyle. He is equally invested but if you are home/not working and he is, you cannot say he is not as invested as he is and that is how you both choose to manage your home.

I stay at home and my husband is equally vested in care but we have different roles as he works and I don't. In no way is he not 50/50 as a parent.

You've missed my point. If we were to divorce, 50/50 custody would not be the best or most equitable solution for us. I made it clear that we are both invested, but in terms of day to day parenting (which is a large part of custody), I do far more of the work. And, I would want some money for child support because our incomes are now disproportionate because of the career sacrifices I've made to be the primary care giver. I'm just talking about logistics. 50/50 sounds equitable, but it isn't always the case in practical terms. But, thankfully, we're not getting divorced!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note: The standard is "the best interests of the CHILD."

The standard is NOT "what is fair for the parents."

50/50 IS best for the children.

Not necessarily. I got off my career path to develop a flexible work plan that allowed me to work and be the primary caregiver. I was the caregiver when they were little, and now after school. I help w/ the homework, I take kids to lessons, I bring things to school, etc. It is not 50/50 in terms of contact time even if the overall investment is 50/50. DH's investment is more monetary, and mine is more caregiving. I make a lot less than DH because of our arrangement. If we ever divorced, 50/50 would not be a fair custody arrangement.

This is a married couple and not the same thing. 50/50 would be fair as you are making the choice to stay home and in order for him do that is for him to work more to cover the income loss/keep your lifestyle. He is equally invested but if you are home/not working and he is, you cannot say he is not as invested as he is and that is how you both choose to manage your home.

I stay at home and my husband is equally vested in care but we have different roles as he works and I don't. In no way is he not 50/50 as a parent.

You've missed my point. If we were to divorce, 50/50 custody would not be the best or most equitable solution for us. I made it clear that we are both invested, but in terms of day to day parenting (which is a large part of custody), I do far more of the work. And, I would want some money for child support because our incomes are now disproportionate because of the career sacrifices I've made to be the primary care giver. I'm just talking about logistics. 50/50 sounds equitable, but it isn't always the case in practical terms. But, thankfully, we're not getting divorced!

Sorry, I did miss your point. I agree with what you wrote (last piece).

[Anonymous]

I’m fascinated by all these “kids need equal time” arguments when in most married couples I know there is one parent that spends significantly more time with the kids but than the other (often mom, but sometimes dad). Why in divorce is equal suddenly the priority vs status quo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note: The standard is "the best interests of the CHILD."

The standard is NOT "what is fair for the parents."

50/50 IS best for the children.

Not necessarily. I got off my career path to develop a flexible work plan that allowed me to work and be the primary caregiver. I was the caregiver when they were little, and now after school. I help w/ the homework, I take kids to lessons, I bring things to school, etc. It is not 50/50 in terms of contact time even if the overall investment is 50/50. DH's investment is more monetary, and mine is more caregiving. I make a lot less than DH because of our arrangement. If we ever divorced, 50/50 would not be a fair custody arrangement.

This is a married couple and not the same thing. 50/50 would be fair as you are making the choice to stay home and in order for him do that is for him to work more to cover the income loss/keep your lifestyle. He is equally invested but if you are home/not working and he is, you cannot say he is not as invested as he is and that is how you both choose to manage your home.

I stay at home and my husband is equally vested in care but we have different roles as he works and I don't. In no way is he not 50/50 as a parent.

You've missed my point. If we were to divorce, 50/50 custody would not be the best or most equitable solution for us. I made it clear that we are both invested, but in terms of day to day parenting (which is a large part of custody), I do far more of the work. And, I would want some money for child support because our incomes are now disproportionate because of the career sacrifices I've made to be the primary care giver. I'm just talking about logistics. 50/50 sounds equitable, but it isn't always the case in practical terms. But, thankfully, we're not getting divorced!

It would be practical BUT its really about child support as you've said. Dad can easily pick up on the parenting duties, but you don't want him to. You want him to go earn money. You'd probably need to bump up your career, so Dad would need to step in more, but you are going to put up that barrier as its all about the money for you. You use money to justify your existence now as the primary, and will use it later too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m fascinated by all these “kids need equal time” arguments when in most married couples I know there is one parent that spends significantly more time with the kids but than the other (often mom, but sometimes dad). Why in divorce is equal suddenly the priority vs status quo?

Usually in divorce Mom get all the time with Dad only getting 2 weekends a month and maybe an hour or two one week night. That is very different from seeing your kids every day and every weekend and being an active parent in terms fo activities and school. Most mom's minimize what the Dad do to make them look good. Are you ok with going from seeing your kids daily to maybe 4 days a month at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why? Because I speak the hard truth?

I am not the one bankrupting myself to keep things "50/50." I married a great guy 30 plus years ago, so I have 100 percent access to our kids, who are about to launch into adulthood.

No wasting money to divorce lawyers -- instead it goes into family enrichment like vacations and college tuition funds. A much better use of family resources than Mr. 50/50.

Who you marry can make the biggest difference in your life. As Mr. 50/50 is finding out the hard way, crappy wife, crappy life.

hi

NP. You sound insufferable.

But yet, I am not divorced, and my kids aren't shuffled from house to house so things can be "50/50." They come from a happy home, not a brloken mess.

I get angry when adults are so selfish and don't put their children's well being above their own desires. Marriage can be hard work (although mine had been challenging only a few years out of the more than 30) and people give up too easily.

If one parent doesn't feel 50/50 is good for the kids, that parent needs to make the sacrifice of being the visiting parent and let the other parent have primary custody. Its the reality of divorce. You cannot say you do not agree with 50/50 but then demand 90/10 with the other parent being a visitor in the kids lives.

You can if one parrnt hadn't been 50/50 all along. If they have had a 95/5 parenting balance while married and suddenly the 5%parent wants 50/50...it's suddenly about the $.

At any rate, if it works for your situation to do 50/50 and the kids can manage it, then fine. I just think it would be placing the burden of the divorce on the kids. But every situation has multiple factors to consider.

The kids carry a huge burden already but having one parent cut out of their lives is only going to make it worse. Parenting is more than just running them to the doctor, activities and school. You cannot say a parent isn't doing an equal share if one parent is the main financial person who has a huge weight to carry and the other picks up the slack at home. They are equally parenting but in different ways.

You think if Mom is a SAH or part-time, and she goes full time that she's going to spend as much time with the kids, NO. If Dad cuts back his work hours, then Mom will lose alimony/child support money which is an issue. Usually when one parent/the woman wants full custody it is because of child support/alimony vs. best for the kids.

If someone says "I think X, but your way is possible too..." you keep coming back to insults and insisting your way is right and anyone who says different is wrong. You are showing the type of thinking that leads to divorce -- "I am right and you are wrong." You leave no room for another opinion. You attack, attack, attack and insist you are right.

So, ok, enjoy that custody arrangement.... and best of luck on marriage #2.

No plans to divorce. Husband is divorced. I would do 50/50 as it took two of us to bring our kids into the world and we are equal parents. I may do more but I have the luxury of not working and he is working but he is an equal parent in every aspect and very capable of doing everything I do. If something happened to me, I know he'd take good care of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note: The standard is "the best interests of the CHILD."

The standard is NOT "what is fair for the parents."

50/50 IS best for the children.

Not necessarily. I got off my career path to develop a flexible work plan that allowed me to work and be the primary caregiver. I was the caregiver when they were little, and now after school. I help w/ the homework, I take kids to lessons, I bring things to school, etc. It is not 50/50 in terms of contact time even if the overall investment is 50/50. DH's investment is more monetary, and mine is more caregiving. I make a lot less than DH because of our arrangement. If we ever divorced, 50/50 would not be a fair custody arrangement.

This is a married couple and not the same thing. 50/50 would be fair as you are making the choice to stay home and in order for him do that is for him to work more to cover the income loss/keep your lifestyle. He is equally invested but if you are home/not working and he is, you cannot say he is not as invested as he is and that is how you both choose to manage your home.

I stay at home and my husband is equally vested in care but we have different roles as he works and I don't. In no way is he not 50/50 as a parent.

You've missed my point. If we were to divorce, 50/50 custody would not be the best or most equitable solution for us. I made it clear that we are both invested, but in terms of day to day parenting (which is a large part of custody), I do far more of the work. And, I would want some money for child support because our incomes are now disproportionate because of the career sacrifices I've made to be the primary care giver. I'm just talking about logistics. 50/50 sounds equitable, but it isn't always the case in practical terms. But, thankfully, we're not getting divorced!

It would be practical BUT its really about child support as you've said. Dad can easily pick up on the parenting duties, but you don't want him to. You want him to go earn money. You'd probably need to bump up your career, so Dad would need to step in more, but you are going to put up that barrier as its all about the money for you. You use money to justify your existence now as the primary, and will use it later too.

I’m a different poster, but seriously...

- anyone, man or woman, who takes multiple tears off during their prime earning years to raise kids will NEVER be able, financially or work-advancement-wise be able to recover completely.

- the person who did work benefitted from the SAH spouse beyond just the raising of the kids. For men especially, having a SAH spouse actually boosts earnings.

- if you haven’t spent a decade managaing schedules, transportation, laundry, etc, it’s not the sort of stuff you can just start adequately performing. My DH asks me three times a week what time he picks up our son from soccer and at which field even though it’s the same every week and on the calendar. You don’t have to SAH to be a good organizer of family life, and SAH isn’t a guarantee that it’s a skill you have. But make no mistake - it is a skill.

- the bottom line: you can’t erase the different sacrifices and benefits that two parties to a marriage have born or enjoyed once they want a divorce. A divorce decree and custody plan must account for the decisions the couple made while together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note: The standard is "the best interests of the CHILD."

The standard is NOT "what is fair for the parents."

50/50 IS best for the children.

Not necessarily. I got off my career path to develop a flexible work plan that allowed me to work and be the primary caregiver. I was the caregiver when they were little, and now after school. I help w/ the homework, I take kids to lessons, I bring things to school, etc. It is not 50/50 in terms of contact time even if the overall investment is 50/50. DH's investment is more monetary, and mine is more caregiving. I make a lot less than DH because of our arrangement. If we ever divorced, 50/50 would not be a fair custody arrangement.

This is a married couple and not the same thing. 50/50 would be fair as you are making the choice to stay home and in order for him do that is for him to work more to cover the income loss/keep your lifestyle. He is equally invested but if you are home/not working and he is, you cannot say he is not as invested as he is and that is how you both choose to manage your home.

I stay at home and my husband is equally vested in care but we have different roles as he works and I don't. In no way is he not 50/50 as a parent.

You've missed my point. If we were to divorce, 50/50 custody would not be the best or most equitable solution for us. I made it clear that we are both invested, but in terms of day to day parenting (which is a large part of custody), I do far more of the work. And, I would want some money for child support because our incomes are now disproportionate because of the career sacrifices I've made to be the primary care giver. I'm just talking about logistics. 50/50 sounds equitable, but it isn't always the case in practical terms. But, thankfully, we're not getting divorced!

"I do most of the work" does not in any way justify not having a 50/50 custody arrangement.

The analogous logic would be "I make most of the money, and therefore a 50/50 money split is not equitable". But I notice that he makes most of the money, and you still think the money should be split 50/50.

He sacrificed time with the kids to make money. You sacrificed money to have time with the kids. Now you want to keep the kids AND the money. And you obviously think that is fair and reasonable... but it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should switch between houses and let the kids stay in the family home.

I 100% agree. An apartment should be kept for thr parents and the kids stay in the family home. The only people who win in a divorce are the parents. The ends end up losing everything.

Additionally, I'm like the PP father. If I were in a divorce I'd bankrupt myself into an oblivion if that's what it takes to get 50/50.

I'd also never initiate a divorce when my kids are teens. What a great way to completely mindfu%k your kids.

And, whose going to pay for all this - keeping the house and apartments for each parent - most can barely afford to keep the house let alone two additional households.

You misunderstood- one apt and the parents go back and forth per the custody agreement - so not paying for two Apts or houses.

And when the parents remarry? Have other kids?

This, and then neither parent has their own space. Who cleans the apartment and turns it over for each parent? Who cleans the house and turns it over for the other parent?

That makes no sense.

And what about when one parent discovers evidence that the other one has been having sex in the apartment... don't tell me that's not going to create a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I’m a different poster, but seriously...

- anyone, man or woman, who takes multiple tears off during their prime earning years to raise kids will NEVER be able, financially or work-advancement-wise be able to recover completely.

- the person who did work benefitted from the SAH spouse beyond just the raising of the kids. For men especially, having a SAH spouse actually boosts earnings. [And the SAH partner benefited from being married to someone who could afford to let them stay home, so that's a wash]

- if you haven’t spent a decade managaing schedules, transportation, laundry, etc, it’s not the sort of stuff you can just start adequately performing. My DH asks me three times a week what time he picks up our son from soccer and at which field even though it’s the same every week and on the calendar. You don’t have to SAH to be a good organizer of family life, and SAH isn’t a guarantee that it’s a skill you have. But make no mistake - it is a skill. [Total nonsense. You cannot extrapolate from your husband's supposed incompetence to "you can't suddenly start managing schedules adequately". if he can manage his work schedule competently, he can manage his family schedule. IT IS NOT THAT HARD. Women just love to pretend it's hard so they can moan about how they do all the "emotional labor". ]

- the bottom line: you can’t erase the different sacrifices and benefits that two parties to a marriage have born or enjoyed once they want a divorce. A divorce decree and custody plan must account for the decisions the couple made while together. [Typically in divorce, women want to keep all the benefits and have their ex-husband keep making sacrifices. And yet women wonder why men are reluctant to sign up for marriage...]