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.....

Anonymous wrote:So many here assume both parents want custody. What happens in cases where one parent doesn't want it. One of mine refused it. When that parent actually took time out to see us kids, I landed up babysitting while my parent spent time with the significant other, or we'd watch family videos of them with my eventual step-sibs. Those were the occasions when the parent bothered to pick us up after making arrangements with us. It would've been worse spending more time with them. I don't see these laws being universally better.

It's not like the courts are forcing co-parents who both agree that they want an arrangement other than 50/50 to do 50/50. If you are both in agreement then the court won't get involved. I live in a state that favors primary/visitation, but we both went in saying we wanted 50/50 joint and that's what we got.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is why is your husband sending you articles about divorce?

This.

Let’s discuss that further. How old are your kids? Who does more unpaid family labor in your household? Who earns more?

Both my husband and I saw the article and he sent it. He got screwed over in his divorce and the courts would not uphold his visitation order despite going back many times. Shared custody is a good thing for both the parents and kids. (look at my husband's kids who had a lot of turmoil growing up due to mom's life choices and removing Dad from the kids lives).

THANK YOU for pointing out that you both read and your husband sent it because it brought to mind his own situation. I'm the OP and this is why my husband sent it as well. I shouldn't be surprised but WOW at the miserable posters here who can't read an article without ASSuming that it was sent as some sort of subliminal signal. We are adults, no need for coded messages in our relationship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is why is your husband sending you articles about divorce?

This.

Let’s discuss that further. How old are your kids? Who does more unpaid family labor in your household? Who earns more?

lol, OP here again. Wow, so many miserable people on DCUM...projecting much?

My husband and I are not getting divorced so this does not apply to us. He does pay child support....as do some of our friends/family members who have been in relationships that didn't pan out. The article is interesting and I wondered what others thought of it.

I agree with making 50/50 custody the default arrangement and working from there.

Anonymous wrote:The real question is why is your husband sending you articles about divorce?

LOL.

OP here. My husband has a child from a previous relationship. We are avid readers and send each other articles all the time about a number of things.

Perhaps you are projecting about your own situation.....I'm pretty confident in mine

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.

So many here assume both parents want custody. What happens in cases where one parent doesn't want it. One of mine refused it. When that parent actually took time out to see us kids, I landed up babysitting while my parent spent time with the significant other, or we'd watch family videos of them with my eventual step-sibs. Those were the occasions when the parent bothered to pick us up after making arrangements with us. It would've been worse spending more time with them. I don't see these laws being universally better.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is why is your husband sending you articles about divorce?

This.

Let’s discuss that further. How old are your kids? Who does more unpaid family labor in your household? Who earns more?

Both my husband and I saw the article and he sent it. He got screwed over in his divorce and the courts would not uphold his visitation order despite going back many times. Shared custody is a good thing for both the parents and kids. (look at my husband's kids who had a lot of turmoil growing up due to mom's life choices and removing Dad from the kids lives).

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.

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.

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.

It’s not about what’s fair to the parent, it’s about what’s best for the kids.

Agreed. People need to think about the kids first. Plus the default parent can go and get a higher paying job.

I have share custody and so does one of my co-workers. The kids were young, right now both are picked up from schools and in my case, my ex keeps the kid more often. It just has ended up so because he doesn't work and has scheduled several after school activities for him on my days and I work at nights.
I always felt like I had to "fight" for custody or I don't love my kid.

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.

It’s not about what’s fair to the parent, it’s about what’s best for the kids.

Anonymous wrote:The real question is why is your husband sending you articles about divorce?

This.

Let’s discuss that further. How old are your kids? Who does more unpaid family labor in your household? Who earns more?