What do you think about presumptive shared parenting?

Forums:

Not sure if you all are aware of it, but there is a big push in father's rights groups to change family courts to award shared parenting in divorce or custody disputes, unless both parents have an alternative that works for them. I'm wondering what you all think about this. Should shared parenting be the norm?

Yup. I firmly believe this

Yup. I firmly believe this is the only reason BM fights him as hard as she does. She makes way more money than he does, and even just 5 more days a year would drop her CS to almost $0.

It just depends on the

It just depends on the situation. Every child and every fanily dynamic is different. If the parents are in court then its more than likely that a shared care arrangement isnt going to work as they most likely have high conflict. I dont see any reason why either parent should automatically be excluded from having shared care because of traditions or what have you. But it shouldnt be a rule for every family either.

^^^ agree

I've got to agree with HRNYC

I've got to agree with HRNYC on this point to an extent.

My husband used to have 50/50. But he was working 10 hours a day while BM didn't work at all. Now, it was wrong that BM didn't have a job. But given that SD was only 3 at the time and she spent most of the time with a babysitter while in my husband's custody, it didn't make sense for him to have her half the time. I could see that she was having a hard time with it. BM lived an hour away so it wasn't like she could do the babysitting while my husband worked.

He ended up giving BM a few extra days because it only made sense. If I hadn't been working for some reason, I'm sure I would've been the one to watch SD while my husband worked, and that would seem wrong when she had a mother who she could be with.

This isn't always the case though. It was great that the courts recognized that my husband was entitled to 50/50. But he made the choice to give BM extra time because of the circumstances in his situation.

AGREEDDDDD!!!!^^^^^ I do A

AGREEDDDDD!!!!^^^^^

I do A LOT for my SS, but if I ever said my husband does nothing, he would be really upset, he does the things that typically "dad" would do, and I do those that typically a "mom" would do. We function as a normal family, we just don't share DNA with each others kids.

so are fathers (or mothers)

so are fathers (or mothers) who are widowed "shitty" if they remarry or recruit others to help out when one parent is permanently out of the picture?

also, my BM works PT and half the time she leaves the kid with her parents. this, despite there being "first refusal" language in their parenting plan. but i guess that's ok in your mind?

My fiance was not a super

My fiance was not a super involved parent, but that's because SOMEONE had to go out and make the money. BM didnt want to work, he foolishly indulged her in this luxury, and the result is that he missed alot of school events and the like. that's how it is when one parent doesnt work. for that to then be held against him at the time of divorce is not fair. but it happens all the time.

but even with his working all the time, the kid was never late for school, did well in school, and wasnt rude and mouthy. she has gone COMPLETELY downhill since being with the "better parent" (according to the court). when we tried to do something a year ago, it went no where. we had her school records, etc. and still they thought mom was best.

its a shame. SD14 is going no where in life, will live off of the system just like her mother and the majority of her mother's family. she might have had a chance with us. but its too late now and no my problem.

i think alot. i know BM has

i think alot.

i know BM has labeled my fiance a deadbeat to anyone who will listen. all because he refuses to pay for anything more than what he is court ordered to pay which is a very generous sum of money.

I think in theory it sounds

I think in theory it sounds great. I think in practice it sounds like a nightmare. People who are low-conflict are generally going to be fair to each other anyway, and most of them already tend to consider what's best for the kids (who they know much better than the court could). High conflict people are just going to use it as an opportunity to let their craziness ramp up to even higher levels. This might be a "win" for fathers in terms of time, but I don't think it's a win for the kids, or even for the dads in terms of quality of life.

Well, my reasoning isn't so

Well, my reasoning isn't so much because of the 50/50 split living - it's more what goes along with "shared parenting", like all the decisions big and small that have to be made regarding kids. It requires more communication to get those things decided - and in high conflict situations, the last thing I want is more communication with a crazy person! I suppose if you don't have to communicate any more than you would with otherwise, it's still a good idea. But I think the whole "50/50" thing is supposed to go along with jointly deciding on parenting rules, medical decisions, involvement in school and extras, etc etc. I know in my own case, there is NO WAY that would have worked with our BM, it would have been a nightmare. Needing to have more and closer contact with BM would have made our lives a living hell.

"In reality, you are correct,

"In reality, you are correct, that the high conflict parent generally finds a way to override the other regarding these decisions. However, that is A LOT harder to do if the kids are with the other parent half of the time. "

Ain't it the truth? BM and DH did have joint legal custody - on paper. But, as you say, BM just made decisions and hell with what DH thought. As long as the kids weren't being actively harmed by her decisions, we decided not to fight her because... well, hills to die on, you know? So, she decided they could not get a driver's license or a job until age 18, but *could* get tattoos at age 16? *sigh* Fine. Not even remotely what DH (or I) would have wanted, but also not a battle we could win with EOWE custody, so we didn't fight.

But I guess that's exactly what I'm talking about. If DH had 50/50, he might have fought those battles. And it would have been a fight, for sure. More contact, more crazy, more stress.... and for what? BM tearing up their license and us getting them a new one all the time? 2 extra years working in McDonald's, maybe? And that's only IF they could get a schedule where they only worked on "our" time? Bah. Still not worth it. Sure, in a perfect world I would have loved for DH to get 50% time. I just think, at least in our case, it would have made both of us, as well as the kids, miserable. And our BM is one of the saner ones! I shudder to think what some of the other BM's would be like....

If 50/50 is going to happen,

If 50/50 is going to happen, the Court needs to safeguard against the father dumping the kid on a girlfriend or his mama. Because that's what they do or try to do invariably.

its better than the kid being

its better than the kid being dumped in daycare. the father has to work! what do you suggest they do with their child when they work? no one seems to have an issue leaving their kid with grandma and grandpa when the marriage is intact.

Actually, being left at

Actually, being left at daycare is worlds better than being left with a disgruntled "disengaged" step. Or worse, the flavor of the month girlfriend who sucks up to the kid to gain favor with the dad. Now grandma is better than daycare I'll give you that. But old grandma is supposed to be savoring and enjoying a grandmotherly relationship, not one of regular care taking.

Ok- so make my original post

Ok- so make my original post to reflect that the Court should make safeguards against both parents deferring their parental responsibility. Now. Both parents do have to work. Who do you want to raise your child?

I would like for the some of

I would like for the some of the BMs on here chime in with their thoughts on who they would prefer raise their child. How many posts have we seen where the SM, also a BM has primary custody or even 50/50 but refuses to believe the DH have the same arrangement with their child.

I think it's a good idea (IF

I think it's a good idea (IF the father wants to take on that role) and with that, the default should also be NO child support. Start negotiating from there.

My mother was a working mother. Father didn't want a child with my mother and left before I was born. I take issue with the idea that being "raised by babysitters" or "dropped off at Mama's" isn't good for the kids. I was LUCKY to grow up in an environment where my (cray cray) mother worked and dropped me off with my Grandma, aunts, Godmother, an awesome babysitter named Claire, and my Great-Grandmother/Grandfather. THEY taught me valuable lessons about life that my mother at ages 21-26 could never have taught.

Many grandparents and babysitters are in a better position to nurture us than our own stressed out parents!

Yes, in many instances it

Yes, in many instances it does take a village. It sounds like you were one of the lucky ones. Not every child has the benefit of enthusiastic (and young!) family members who are so willing and able to take on child rearing reaponsibility.

I think it's better to have

I think it's better to have shared parenting. My CO says I have the custody, but ex and I share parenting, always have, always will. Fathers deserve more rights, and if they want them it shouldn't be a fight.

In my case, its better for me

In my case, its better for me to raise my child and for him to go to school with me. He calls his dad alot and every long weekend or vacations, he spends mostly with his dad. This has proven to work out the best for us. True co-parenting would not work for us.

Hubby had 50/50 for about 3

Hubby had 50/50 for about 3 years with his ex. It was hell when I came back into his life. 50/50 only works if both parents can really co parent. Which is rare.

Then his ex went off the deep end. He took her to court for full custody and I kid you not, took all of 10 minutes for the mom too lose all rights to her kid. Courts are definitely changing.

If I didn't suspect this was

If I didn't suspect this was all about $$, then I'd be more on board with the 50/50 idea.

What about the MOMS that

What about the MOMS that don't pat CS????????????

No one ever seams to complain about that!!!!

If dad has the child mostly or all the time - the MOM SHOULD pay some form of CS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I absolutely agree with you.

Oh trust me WTF, I complained

Oh trust me WTF, I complained plenty about Uberskank not paying CS when H was CP.

It took the state nearly a year to begin deducting CS from her paychecks. H was urging them to hurry because she has a history of voluntary unemployment. When he was CP she actually had a job and he was worried she'd quit or get fired before he could collect.

Which is exactly what happened. The state dinked around with the paperwork (which had to be updated EOW because the amount of the CS in arrears was always changing), sporadic payments came in combined of her monthly CS and the payments against the arrears. Then nothing for weeks. Then a bit here and a bit there.

Then she quit (or was fired) from her job.

It was only after she lost her job that H started seeing regular payments via the state. They garnished her unemployment checks. Then her tax return was seized by the state. It took a year (with two tax seasons) but her debt to H was finally paid off.

By the way.....during this time of paying for CS and paying off arrears, Uberskank became CP again.

Want to guess how long it took the state to begin deducting CS from HIS paychecks?? All of 3.2 seconds.

Took two to make them, should

Took two to make them, should take both to raise them. Period. End. Stop.

I agree with you. Children

I agree with you. Children need one place to call home. It seems that you prefer your children stay with you to keep up their routine. Routine keeps children happy. For the very same reason, your steps should stay with their mother because it makes havoc in your home and in their lives as well. The disconnect I see is when a SM wants her own biological child with them for their health and well being but does not think their step might be better off living with their father for their own health and well being.

Personally, I believe a child

Personally, I believe a child belongs with his mother in the early years (barring true legal or mental issues). However, this opinion is not popular amongst men's rights groups of course.

But then what about the

But then what about the biology argument PP used above? Is that not a fair argument?

If children need to be with

If children need to be with the better parent,may I ask why your steps are not living with you in the home you share with the father? Is your husband not the better parent? I'm not trying to call you out specifically. Your personal situation highlights my point.

I'm not trying to be snarky

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I'm genuinely confused about what point you're trying to make? Is it something like, "SM's don't want skids living with them"?

I dunno. I will say that although DH had EOWE visitation (and "joint legal", which wasn't worth the paper it was written on), we DID eventually get custody of SDthen17. DH was the better parent, even SD recognized that, so she lived with us for a few months. (She's now 18, and living with her BF. Against our wishes, but since she's 18.... *sigh* There's a hell of a lot more to that story, but I suspect it doesn't have anything to do with your point.)

Soooo.... I'm a SM that supported DH having primary physical custody because it was best for SD.

Heck yeah to everything you

Heck yeah to everything you wrote. Also, I wouldn't get involved with dad unless he also had a nanny/maid and cook. That should be worked into a pre-nup

I really enjoyed reading all

I really enjoyed reading all the responses to this. I asked, because I know that this change often affects stepmoms even more so than the fathers since, as some of you pointed out, stepmoms are the ones often taking care of the kids in Dad's care. Some of you made some great points, and I'd like to share my view.

The one thing I don't agree with is comments such as, "It doesn't matter how things were during the marriage; they are no longer married." Or, "If you can't support kid, kid goes to the parent who can."

I can agree with statements that support a case by case evaluation, since every situation can vary.

Since I live in a world where Mom stays home and Dad works, I want to examine that for a minute. Some of you would simply say, "Tough, you're no longer married, go get a job." And the truth is, you are speaking as a second wife when you say that. If it were your child, you would fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo because it was important to you during the marriage, and it's important to you now. Magically it often loses its significance by men who find themselves handing money over to a woman he no longer can have sex with...hmmm. Anyway...

If children were home with mom all day, why should that change for the child? (Please don't start assuming all bms are like your bm. And let me point out that during my marriage, I thought the bm was evil because of what my exh filled my head with...) If parents in the single earner household were to share custody, it is likely that once mom gets a job, the kids will spend all day in day care. And who will have to pay that? It's likely the Dad, since Mom took any job she could find to pay bills and couldn't be too picky. So now, money is going out to pay someone else other than the parents to raise their child. Now, the kids need their own rooms at both parents' houses, and bikes, toys, clothes, etc., everything doubles. More wasted money. If kids are in school, there are literally maybe 5 hours every afternoon that either parent can spend with the child, and often those are filled with activities and homework. Since parents are already trading weekends, they are literally fighting over a few hours every evening. No, what they are really fighting about is money.

If children were really more important, why not have ONE home with the "bonded parent," and every other week, the other parent gets those 5 hours in the evenings and returns the kid to the one home before bed? No, this doesn't work unless you live really close, but if you follow father's rights groups much, they will flat out tell you that you aren't putting your kids first if you don't do whatever makes it easier for THEM, which would mean living close enough for THEM to do what they want (which is whatever costs them less). The one (NCP) parent wouldn't need to furnish everything at their house, and they still get the quality time with the kids. The reality is, the NCP parent would often drop the time awarded to him/her because they just want to go home and not be bothered with "quality time." They want their "me time" after working all day. That's why kids go home (wherever that is) and get on their phones/video games, etc. because the parents are doing their own thing anyway. Yeah, same thing happens at both homes when both parents work all day. You want to know what's wrong with kids these days? It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Parents are too tired to bother. When mom has gotten things done all day, the afternoon is less stressful and more quality time can be spent on the kids. Now, I do work at home on top of doing housework and homeschooling my kids. Please don't argue with a "least common denominator" scenario because we all know there are moms who suck, use child support for cigarettes, and move a guy in the second the divorce is final. Look at your man for choosing so poorly, don't blame the system.

I have literally seen stepmoms on here complain about cs, while being a sahm. I don't get that. And yes, I wrote that check every month to the first wife, even after she was remarried to a guy who was doing pretty well for himself because it wasn't HIS responsibility to pay for THEIR child. Once you have a child, you are responsible for him until he is responsible for himself. It doesn't matter if you divorce or were never even married.

I don't receive enough cs to NOT have my own income. And my ex makes good money. If I got half his paycheck, he would still do well, because guess what? HE doesn't have children to feed 24/7 or kids to drive all over. He has a life and he loves it that way. And guess what? A LOT of men love it just how it is. The truth is, many of the men fighting for shared parenting didn't get it awarded because of who they are or what they have done in the past. Or because if you talk to them for 5 seconds it's obvious they just don't want to have to pay cs. I bet a judge can see right through that as well. (I do know of men who should have gotten full custody and a psych eval proved issues in the mom. Shared parenting was awarded. But I do know they exist!)

In many cases, both parents had to work, and will have to work after divorce. I agree with two healthy parents in these cases, if they both want shared parenting and want to provide two of everything to the children, why not? But since most cases include some type of income disparity, cs will always be a factor no matter where the kids live. If you demand each parent pay for the kid out of their own income in cases where Dad makes $60,000 a year and Mom makes $30,000 a year, you just don't make any sense at all.

in my situation, we have a BM

in my situation, we have a BM who thinks she needs to stay home with her daughter...who is 14. IMO, there is no reason why the woman cant work. she also lives with her parents.

Do you know if that wasn't

Do you know if that wasn't the arrangement they had planned for their future? It was our mutual agreement that I stay at home with the children until they grow up. I won't get into the whys because it's really of no concern. But there are reasons for the agreement, and it was mutual. Why should his philosophy on child rearing suddenly flip because he's remarried? What does his married status have to do with how he wants his children to be raised?

no way did he intend for her

no way did he intend for her to laze around and watch soaps all day. her refusal to go back to work FT when the child was of an age where she could do so was a big part of why they divorced.

And IMO, a 14 yr old needs

And IMO, a 14 yr old needs even MORE time with a parent than a small child, or at least supervision after school. Too many parents are abandoning their kids' needs because they think they are old enough to take care of themselves. What they are is old enough to get themselves into real trouble.

she has the option to work

she has the option to work 7am-3pm (during school) or 11pm-7am overnights (her parents are home then).

but i hear you. in our case, the kid STILL gets into trouble even with mom at home. the kid is in her room on the internet on all sorts of sites, completely unmonitored, while mom is flopped on the couch watching TV and texts her periodically as a means of communication. she's also allowed to roam free at the mall and at football games. we know according to her instagram that she was at bare minimum kissing her "secret" boyfriend in teh back of a school bus during a school football game.

so, yeah, he mom is home, but she isnt raising her daughter, nor did she ever.

BRAVO! Magnifico!!

In my state, it has been

In my state, it has been assumed 50:50 since about 2001. It is very unusual for one parent to get sole legal, physical custody.

Overall, I think that it is a good thing. Imperfect parents are still parents and most children benefit from having a real relationship with both.

On this board, it seems as if most of the NCP's are complete mental whackjobs with substance abuse issues, etc. Guessing that they are not the "norm," so in those situations, I would hope that the courts would modify the % in response.

I feel that the 50:50 is

I feel that the 50:50 is right for most children coming from two stable loving parents, but Dads must also raise their kids and not be Disney Dads. As for staying at home to raise kids, in today's society that is difficult to do for the vast majority and its no longer a "given" that Mom gets to stay home with the kids. With good child care and loving parents, it does not do children any harm to go to after care for a few hours a week, it actually helps them with their social skills. Frankly I dont agree with mothers feeling entitled to stay home because they gave birth to children, if you are fit and healthy and the kids are all in school, get out and work and contribute financially to the household. But I digress.....unless one or other of the parents is dysfunctional, both parents should be allowed to raise their children. The kids are better off in the long run.

It doesn't matter if it's not

It doesn't matter if it's not a "given" that Mom gets to stay home. If 90% of women work and 10% don't, why should the 10% who planned that Mom stay home all of a sudden change? Are you saying that on top of school, "after care for a few hours a week" helps them with their social skills? So time with Mom and/or Dad is diminished even further? What?! Then why not send them on to boarding school?

Kids are not getting "social skills" at school, I hate to tell you. And there are many ways to earn money from home by "fit and healthy" individuals. It is unfortunate that so many people feel as you do...that kids should be in some sort of school all day and both parents should "get out and work and contribute financially to the household." Parents are no longer raising their children. They really aren't fighting for this right at all.

I am actually surprised and a

I am actually surprised and a little disappointed that people are still perpetuating the "social skills" myth. It's simply not an issue. Maybe Mom has to work to pay the bills. That is justification enough. Thinking that it's actually beneficial to the child or superior to being raised by a parent at home is rationalization.

You know you are right, I

You know you are right, I guess I do rationalize that my kids learned social skills at school. As a true single mom (hubby killed in an accident when the kids were young) I still believe I did the right thing by working and having them in aftercare, picking them up at 5.30pm rather than 3pm from school. That way I was able to provide for them and support them. And yes, learning life skills is very important, sometimes we have to learn them a bit earlier than planned. My point was that life does not always turn out as planned........sometimes we have to get out and work to pay the bills. Just because a woman was stay-at-home, doesn't mean her ex husband has to support her. Support their mutual children, yes absolutely, but support her???

Oh ok I see, so you feel that

Oh ok I see, so you feel that because a woman/man is "stay at home" and then divorces, that the status quo should continue? Hmmm, well life doesn't always work out like that. And yes I am a firm believer that school teaches us social skills. Good for you if you could afford to stay at home when married, but I guess when divorce or death happens then things have to change. As a career woman who has raised happy successful children alone (due to the death of my husband), I object to your saying that many people believe that kids should be in some kind of school. What I am saying is that unless there is a physical or mental disability, working outside the home is not harmful to children. (Or working while at home, which is what I did for a second job). Many women, like myself, work hard both at home and outside the home to ensure, multitasking, juggling. Guess what? That does not necessarily equate to dysfunctional kids. My kids tell me all the time how proud they are of me, and how thankful that I didn't choose the welfare option just so I could not diminish my time with them. We don't all get to have the dream life, and I have met way too many women who feel entitled not to work because they gave birth. Give me a break.

I agree with you Anna. If

I agree with you Anna. If someone wants to and can afford to stay at home with their kids, that is great for them. But having a mother/parents that work out of the home and kids that need some extra childcare to work around that in no way harms the children. My parents both worked and I learnt that I am not the center of the universe but that others have their own lives and don't have to drop everything to fit me in. It also showed me that women can be great mothers and have successful careers. So just because I have a womb and biological urges to reproduces doesn't mean I have to give up on my career ambitions (yes, i am sure they will be diluted somewhat especially here in the US which is frankly third world standards of maternal/paternal rights, but that is something i will have to try to live with).

I object to the implication

I object to the implication that daycare is somehow the superior option. You do not like the implication that your children have suffered in daycare. Likewise,I do not like the implication my children are suffering at home.

its great to plan to have a

its great to plan to have a parent stay home if you can do it. But circumstances can change any time.

you could get divorced, that's the obvious one.

but you could also become widowed, the breadwinner can lose their job, someone can become ill, etc. so in those instances, you are forced to revisit the issue of someone staying home. its no different than divorce. its life.

Yes, so just pile on as much

Yes, so just pile on as much change and turmoil on the child because "life happens?" A couple has a two year old. The mother stays home with him. The dad screws his secretary and the marriage is over. Dad marries his secretary and mom needs to put the baby in daycare because it's time Mom pulls her own weight. Seriously- this is a very extreme example- but consider the theory of "life happens".

let us also not forget that

let us also not forget that there are VERY FEW "true" stay at home moms - moms that are home with their kids all day every day until kindergarten. Most moms today send their kids to "preschool" by age 2 or 3. many of these moms WANT their kids to be with other kids or other people for "socialization". suddenly when its dad or dad's new wife or dad's stepkids, they suddenly decide they dont want their child around them.

You are here

What do you think about presumptive shared parenting?