I think that is an antiquated notion. Unfortunately, it is what the courts think. Creature would have been WAY better off living with DH from the start. I think if both adults are emotionally healthy and loving, kids should share time with both parents. Kids need fathers too.

"A pessimist complains about the wind, an optimist counts on the wind changing, a realist adjusts his sails"

There IS a difference between having a different opinion and being an asshole, find it.

I think this is an old fashioned bullshit idea.

My Dh was more of a "mother" to sd then her mom was. He took the time off work, while she "attended" school to take care of this little premie baby. He did everything for her. But we go to court and she plays the mom card and wins. There are some men out there that are better "Mom"s then women, and they should be respected for all the hard work they do.

Anyways, the only difference between a man and a woman when it comes to child rearing is the milk supply, which most young mothers decide against anyways (now a days....)

I don't think they should live with mom if mom is bad for them. I didn't want my son living with me when I was going through my emotional crisis when he was a toddler. It was better for him to live with his father. After I got healthy, it was better that he lived with me because his father was showing himself to be extremely unreliable and irresponsible with choochoo.

____________________________________________________________________________
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. ~Anaïs Nin

I think every situation is different, but my strong personal belief is that children should be given every chance to develop healthy relationships with both parents. For that reason, I think they should live with both (assuming both parents are relatively normal and healthy).

*

I think children should live with whoever can provide the best household. Its sad if a mother cannot take care of her children but it is also sad to place a child in the care of someone who cannot provide the best life for it simply because that person is their mother. Its horrible the way courts treat fathers. Of all the things that piss me off that is near the top. Just because someone gave birth to a child does not mean they can care for it properly. I might sound like a bitch about this but I honestly believe you should have to take a parenting class when you have a child. If you don't take the class you can't keep your child. So many children are being raised in bad homes because some people just can't keep their legs closed or their junk in their pants. Children should live with people who are prepared to love them AND take care of them. So who gives the best place to live is where children should be.

Life isn't about the days you have, its about what you do with the days you have.

I think the law stinks. Especially in my state (NJ) . My lawyer said unless my ex was a crack whore to forget even thinking of getting my kids.

I think that if both parents are stable, sane people, then custody should be split 50/50. If that's not the case, then the child should go with the parent who is best able to care for them.

NO WAY... I think that kids should live with their parents so long as their are fit to raise kids, and if that means having 2 homes, then SO BE IT. This isn't the 1950's anymore people... men are perfectly capable of nurturing their children... and in some cases are more prone then the mom.

Puh---leeessee.

DISbelief~

~You have to BE crazy to UNDERSTAND crazy!~

My DH is Mr. Mom and much more reliable than BM was when she got custody. She's still a dingbat, so I believe we have the more ... developmentally sound environment.

The duty of a parent is to provide basic survival and to teach their children to grow up and be responsible adults. If one parent has no real history of being a responsible adult (i.e. can't provide for their own surival even) and the other does, then that parent is infinitely more qualified regardless of gender.

I think a child deserves to grow up with both parents. But the most responsible parent should be the CP, not necessarily the mom.

Here are my thoughts about when a mom should no longer be the CP:
- Mom endangers the life or well-being of the child(ren)
- Mom refuses to co-parent with the Dad
- Mom engages in PAS
- Mom prevents visitation with DH

Wow Pantera... whoever wrote that kids should live with their mothers, hands down... should come and talk to my SD.

*** A rainbow just threw up on me... and now I'm sh*tting glitter! ***

hmmm.. I think if yur "mother" tries to poison you, won't feed u, but will feed her bf, locks food up so that u will not eat it, won't wash yur clothes so u get repeated urinary infections, of course considering u got clothes from somewhere else because she won't buy u any, leaves u home alone while she goes out to troll, beats u until u bleed, curses the day u were born and takes the cs check and runs to the bar,,,,ummmm...no...I don't think children should automatically live with the "mother".....any female can give birth...it takes a great woman to raise a child

A mother is not defined by the "b" or the "s" in front of her name, she is defined by how she handles the "mother" part.....

I think a child should live with the parent most suited to provide for them physically, emotionally, educationally, medically and financially.

IMHO this means one primary home and one primary parent. Liberal visitation with the NCP during non school year times is important. The 7wks per year schedule my Son (SS-17) has been on with the SpermClan (5wks Summer, 1wk Winter, 1Wk Spring, 1wk fall if NCP keeps him local and no school is missed).

This allows for the primary household rules, ethics, values and schedule to hold and the child to develop and grow in a stable environment.

IMHO of course.

Success is rarely final. Failure is rarely fatal. It is character, courage and consistency of effort that count. Vince Lombardi (with some minor Rags modifications) To each according to their performance, screw Karl Marx. (Rags)

You guys are scaring the hell out of me. It looks like the 50/50 arrangement that we currently have is about to go back to court. DH wants full custody of his daughter because BM can't seem to effectively parent his 14 year old daughter. We feel we have a good case, but she is definitely not a crack whore. But, she is an ineffective parent. She has a job that keeps her working 50 hours a week at best. I own my own firm that allows me to work from my home. DH works 5 minutes away. He SK's have both been expelled from the local HS and my son looks great on paper. SD14 has threatened that she refuses to live here anymore, since her father grounded her for lying on Saturday and that mommy knows and wants her to live with her full time.

We have had 50/50 for 5 years and it worked great. Now since she is mom and her house has no rules, she is the better parent.

My fear is we go to court to get custody and we spend thousands of dollars and the mother will win anyway. This sucks!!!

IT SHOULD EITHER BE 50/50 OR WITH THEIR MOTHER. EITHER WAY THE BM SHOULD HAVE BOUNDARIES TO NOT BE ALLOWED TO PAWN OFF HER KIDS ON THE STEPMOTHER 90% OF THE TIME(IN MY CASE).

I think that if there has to be a choice made, that a kid should live with the parent most suited to their needs, who is most capable of giving that child a stable enviroment, and of being responsible and parenting the child, whether that be the mother or the father or a relative. It is not a hard and fast thing, either. people change over a life time and a kids needs change over a lifetime. sometimes they dont, but most people evolve, grow and change until the day they die. of course, what a thing should be has nothing what so ever to do with what a thing will be in our world.