My sister and her ex live a few streets apart so it is really minimally disruptive. Niece and nephew have friends to play with in both neighborhoods and they take the same bus to school. My sister and her ex also co parent really well which I think helps.

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.

Children whose parents are divorced still have two parents.

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.

So basically still having no “real” home, by your standards.

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.

But who gets which? It’s very easy for one parent to get screwed in that arrangement. Also, I’ve many tiles seen a parent proper something like that in bad faith, knowing that it don’t work for the other parent and hoping to inconvenience them, make them look bad, or force a full custody situation. And those kinds of games are exactly why 50-50 exists.

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.

Ideally the parents arrange it in a way that maximally benefits the kids. The problem is that many divorced parents have a lot of anger and resentment towards each other and cannot collaborate to go-parent. That is what turns the kids into chattel, not the 50-50 default. The default exists to try and guide parents to do the right thing, which is to share responsibility equitably and to ensure both parents are maintaining strong parental bonds.

Also, if both parents consent, you can arrange it however you want (60-40, 90-10, whatever). 50-50 only gets imposed when parents can’t agree, because their legal rights to custody are equal.

Don’t have kids with someone you can’t work custody out with.

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.

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?

It’s not ideal. We make it work by spending a lot of money ensuring the child has two homes, not no home. If she gets something, she gets two of them. She never has to bring anything back and forth except her schoolwork.

OP what is the alternative?

Do you have a better solution? Do tell!

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.

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

We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

The pendulum has swung way too far. 50/50 makes kids into chattel who have to shuffle their lives between multiple homes.

Why do judges do this to kids? Does ANY kid like this arrangement?