I am in favor of equal parenting rights with equal physical and legal custody. After raising two sons who have no contact with their father, I’ve seen first hand the damage an absent parent can cause.
My ex was given every opportunity to equally parent his children. He wasn’t interested but there are many fathers who fight against a system that favors mothers and one thing a father should never have to do is fight for the right to equally parent his children.
I believe our family court system has to change and in a way, that recognizes the importance of fathers in the lives of their children. Every other weekend and one night a week is not a parent child relationship. It is court ordered visitation and until the courts stop ordering “visitation” and start giving fathers the same recognition given to mothers, children of divorce will...read more about shared custody
I agree that the role of a father in a child’s life is invaluable. But would you agree that the child also has a right to a primary residence? I know some father’s want 50% of the child’s time, but it seems that would be awfully difficult for the child and would certainly necessitate the parents living quite close to one another.
As a child of divorce myself, my father almost always lived in a different city than me, so we had no choice but every other Christmas, Spring Break and one month in the summer. But I can’t help but be thankful that I wasn’t switching residences every other week.
Carolyn,
Would you feel the same way if you were the parent who was eliminated a priori? Do you feel strongly enough about the value of a primary residence to be the secondary residential parent? Most women don’t, so they fight tooth and toenail to retain custody.
When I look at the nature of my bond with my children, scheduled events are nice, but it is actually the casual time that is more important. Those events can only happen when there is significant time spent together, dealing with the range of activities in the child’s life. Something not available in a twice a month or three time a year visit.
Cathy, thank you for writing this article; it shows courage and journalistic objectivity on your part. Too often, it’s not “policitally correct” to take the sides of fathers – it’s just so much easier to generalize and throw around labels like “deadbeat dad,” when the vast majority of divorced fathers are good men who love their children dearly and want to spend more time with them. The problem with comments such as the one made Carolyn, is that she has unthinkingly swallowed the creaky idea that “children belong with the mother.” Undoubtedly some children do, but why has this become the “default” position in the courts and in society? You’ll have to prove this to me in terms better than “they just do.” This represents an extreme form of gender bias. And note that I’m NOT arguing that children should automatically be awarded to the fathers; I’m arguing that fathers should be given an EQUAL chance for custody on a case-by-case basis. Or are some people “more equal” than others???
Please don’t misunderstand me. I have no bias towards which parent should have the primary residence. I agree that in some cases the father might make the more appropriate primary custodian. I used the mother as primary in my comment because that’s what I grew up in. My father was the one who moved away; I certainly would never had chosen our visitation schedule. My point was simply that I don’t think a 50/50 arrangement is ideal…for the child.
The child deserves to have a place to call home. And even when the best attempt is made to duplicate possessions and comforts, it can’t help but fall short. We all know; I’m sure we all remember that children have favorite items such as clothes and toys that they would undoubtedly be lugging with them 50% of the time.
Think of one of the most common introductory questions that children ask each other. “Where do you live”? Do you think the child of divorce who already has that to explain to all their new acquaintances also wants to explain their dual residence? I would venture that most children don’t.
A divorce in and of itself rocks the child of divorce’s sense of stability. I believe that the 50/50 arrangement can only erode it further. We all are comforted by the sense of being ‘home’ and I can tell you that children of divorce deserve that comfort. It’s not fair to make these kids feel as if they two halves of a home instead.
So to Father’s who want to be their child’s primary residence, I say ‘go for it’! I wish you well. But don’t push for 50% if you don’t succeed. I know you love your children. I know it would make you feel better. But lets not worry about you for a minute and worry about the kids instead.
And yes, James. If it were me and my ex spouse was awarded primary custody of my children, I would put myself second, do the very best I could with the time I had (including perhaps spending time with them at their dad’s), and let them have one real home.
I have shared parenting…have for 1 year now….50%…no child support to her, she makes the same as me. Our child is great! We have agreed to alternate years claiming tax benefits that the “non-cutodial” parent doesn’t get.
Anyone who suggests the home-base myth is grasping at straws. The child loves both his/her parents equally, neither parent should have the child more than the other. Obvioulsy long distances become a difficult issue. I live 2 miles from my son, and will never live more than 10 until he’s an adult.
All the useless excuses about added costs, such as two rain coats, etc., are irrelevent, the fact my son can grow up with his father vested equally in his life guarntees him a greater chance for success than a mother only. My son benefits, so does his mom as she has down time to recharge, and society benefits as my son has a strong male role model to guide him, something a mother cannot provide…what it means to be a man.
Of course NOW opposes shared parenting soley for financial reasons…no child support and the de facto alimony hidden in the c/s tables.
wow! I didn’t realize I would make you so angry! Do you really believe that a child of divorce’s possessions aren’t important to them? Do you really believe they carry absolutely no shame over their situation? Of course he loves you and his mother equally; that has nothing to do with it.
I am a child of divorce and I am a parent. There are a lot of times as parents we see only what we want to see. And believe it or not as children of divorce, many times we show our parents only what we think they want to see as well. The last thing we ever want to do is disappoint you or make you feel like anything is hurting us.
I certainly don’t speak about money here. Child support, alimony…I couldn’t care less. I’m child of divorce, my children are not. I know what it feels like to grow up with divorced parents. I’m not just talking nonsense.
The presence of BOTH parents in the child’s life – and here I’m talking of an actual presence, as opposed to just being an occasional visitor – trumps any considerations of possessions, toys, etc. Those can be replaced, parents cannot. I think you might feel differently if mothers were awarded child support only 20% of the time, instead of 80%. Your entire argument smacks of “well, let’s just leave things as they are.” As things stand, they’re only “good” for the mothers involved, they’re not so good for the children or the fathers.
“Cathy, thank you for writing this article; it shows courage and journalistic objectivity on your part”
This article was written nearly a year ago. It wasn’t written in an attempt to “take sides” but to express what I believe is the best situation for children whose parents have divorced.
“Of course NOW opposes shared parenting soley for financial reasons…no child support and the de facto alimony hidden in the c/s tables.”
If it isn’t about child support why did you bring up the fact that you are not paying child support?
Just as you assign motives for NOWs opposition of equal parenting they are free to assign motives for your desire to parent equally.
divorcesupport said: “This article was written nearly a year ago. It wasn’t written in an attempt to “take sides” but to express what I believe is the best situation for children whose parents have divorced.”
Yes, I was able to extract that abstruse meaning; note my use of the term “objectivity.”
I am amazed that any one could believe that divorce is painless, that child support, or alimony and getting out of paying”her” is the sign of a “good divorce” there is no good divorce for children of divorce.. they had No Choice this may be all they know if they were young.. you can pretend all you wish… divorce hurts children.
Some men and maybe even some women who divorce their spouses and their children, it happens, it is not the courts, not an evil biomom/biodad who is the the only parent who parents.. it simply someone who is absent in mind, body or spirit, that hurts children.. they feel unworthy, and unimportant… and that is a crime worthy of punishment… not equal parenting time. Children belong with the parent who will parent them, they need one stable home, and a primary caregiver… there is no equal… their is only what is good for the children…. and what is fair to the children… family courts are imperfect, some of us do not belong there at all, some father’s are being treated poorly, but some father’s treated their children poorly… there are no do over, a child only has a single childhood… miss part of it and you may miss all of it… do the right thing parent no matter what, put the children first.. and try harder to make the marriage work… and keep your family intact… it is worth your childrens happiness..
“Children belong with the parent who will parent them, they need one stable home, and a primary caregiver… there is no equal… their is only what is good for the children”
No equal? Why not? Children need the love of both parents and in case of a divorce both parents have equal rights to parent a child.
Mothers often use the argument they have been their child’s “primary caretaker.” And in cases where the mom stays home and the father works that is true.
Just because a mother has been the primary caretaker doesn’t mean the father is less a parent. Loves his child less or values his time with his child less. And, parents and cares for a child to a lesser degree than the “primary caretaker.”
In a perfect world no child would have to suffer the emotional pain of divorce. We don’t live in a perfect world. Few parents who file for divorce stop to think of the consequences to their child when they are thinking about leaving a marriage.
Women are leaving marriages left and right and in doing so, turning fathers into visitors in their own children’s lives. And, robbing their children of the enfluence and love they can only get from a father.
You are right, some fathers treat their children badly. Not all fathers do though and those who want equal time with their children have earned that right as much as the “primary caretaker.”
Children are not objects owned by the parent who has spent the most time caring for them. They are individuals with needs and their greatest need is both a mother and a father.
That need trumps the need for one stable home any day.
I guess what I don’t understand is, why does it have to be one or the other? Why is it so black and white? Even the examples used in the article were based on the complete absence of fathers, not a shared custody arrangement. And I think everyone is in agreement that this is not acceptable at all. But can’t both parents have an equal presence in the child’s life while also providing a stable primary residence? Don’t children of divorce deserve both? Without considering what trumps what?
Because having a presence in a child’s life doesn’t have to equal being under your direct supervision. Phone calls count. Going to their extra curricular’s count. Spending an evening with dinner and homework time counts. And visits with them at their primary residence count. And it’s not that I’m not in favor of extended visits with the other parent. I just don’t think the kids life needs to be split precisely down the middle.
Maybe it’s the need to take the term ‘primary caretaker’ completely out of the vocabulary and consider ‘equal caretaking’ while allowing the child to have their own home, where ever that home happens to be. Because it should never be about who’s primary or secondary, or who’s paying who. It’s about helping children live through incredibly difficult circumstances. It’s about acknowledging All of their needs and trying to meet them. Regardless of feeling at a slight disadvantage to your ex spouse. Trust me, your child couldn’t care less about that.
Fathers are imperative to sons and daughters alike. So are mothers. So is a stable home. If based on that premise you still want to consider one parent to simply be an ‘occasional visitor’, that’s fine. But I can guarantee that’s not how the child will regard either of their parents. Ever.
I used to think that it would be good if my husband (now ex husband) spent more time with our children. Now that we have divorced and I can more clearly see what kind of man he is I think it was a blessing that he did not interfere with my working to raise our children to be good people.
No fault divorce, I believe, is appropriate when BOTH parties agree that it’s the best option. That’s not how it works, though. The way it works is that ONE party unilaterally decides that they no longer want to be married to that person. That’s how my marriage ended. And thank God I had an education and a family who looked out for my best interest. My ex married the other woman is is totally devoted to her. She had been married also during their four-year affair. Marriage has become a sham. It seems that it has become an arrangement of what can this other person do for me ? And if the other person doesn’t deliver or it they encounter some disappointment, the other spouse simply “gets fired.” In the old days of the 50s and 60s, it wasn’t that women “knew their place” and submitted to “taking care of their husband’s needs.” Up until the 70s most women who had no education or high earning trade had to stay in those marriages because they had NO OTHER OPTIONS. And unfortunately, many of those types of marriages were coupled with abusive, controlling, philandering husbands who loved their dog and their shot gun collection more than they cherished their wives.
The only person in the comments here has done true joint custody is WOW. The child lives and spends time at both parents and both parents are supporting themselves and their child. Most custody situations where the father pays for all and the mother enjoys. IF one parent sees the other make more money they go to court to get more support for their child (really themselves). This is not joint it is one parent being the wallet for the other and his children. Many times the custodial parent makes it terrible for the non custodial parent to spend time with their children. My children had many friends from divorce and I have friends who are non custodial parents and their ex’s have made life hell for them until their children get out of College. Oh Yes the fathers are expected to pay full tution for all the children not mothers. When the courts start saying to each parent if you want to be the prime custodial parent then support the child do not expect the other parent to pay for your life style or your vacations. IF you cannot afford to take care of your children then let the other parent do it while you get yourself on your feet.
My parents divorced when I was young and my mother married a soldier, so I moved around the world and hardly saw my father. It was not an ideal childhood. I was able to reconnect with dad when I was older and have a strong sense of what was missed.
My ex was one of those fathers who insisted on 50/50 custody of the kids. Actually he said he’d do anything from him having full custody to us sharing time equally. Any plan with him having less would have to be court imposed. He’d fight “to protect the children” to the last penny.
My lawyer said that he was very well prepared for a fight and there was a chance that I’d loose. I finally agreed when my ex said why fight if we don’t have to? That if it didn’t work out, we could always fight later and that if we did fight, doubted that there would be a chance of us co-parenting, regardless of what the parenting schedule was or who got custody.
It’s been a year, and I think it is going well. We live close, and neither of us can move out of the school district without becoming the non-residential parent. Because he makes more than me, he pays child support and covers their medical insurance. We split all of the extra costs 50/50.
We do alternating weeks, so there is actually less exchanges than the plans proposed by the mediator. We do the exchange Friday after school so the backpack is always at the right house. The kids have cell phones, so their friends can easily get in touch with them.
They have a home with both of us. I can’t imagine them visiting me.
My husband and i seperated about 6 months ago and are waiting for a divorce, i have three children and at the momment we have 50/50 shared care.
I think shared care is good for some children and not so good for others. My 7 yr old finds it ok but at the same time is always asking why i have to leave and if she can stay with me i know she wants to live with me alone because ahe has told me this but i think she feels if she tells her dad that he will get upset! My other 2 children who are 4 and 2 tell me they only want to stay with me all the time i know they are only young but as i have been the main carer in there life since they were born it is only natural.
I belive fathers who have made the effort to be a part of there childrens lifes while they are still married do deserve to have equall care of there children after the divorce but in my case i was a stay at home mum for 6 years and did absolutly everything for my kids obviusly my husband was working but when he got home all he wanted was down time for himself instead of spending time with his children he rarely seen, although we were in the same house. Weekends were the same the kids went everywhere with me while he was of playing sport or seeing his friends.
So now we are seperated he demands that he get 50/50 custody and i agreed to do so on a trial basis but a big part of me belives he does not deserve it why should he when he has taken them for granted all this time???
Also just because someone does have 50/50 care it does not mean they are any more present in there child/childrens lifes my husband still works full time and my children spend all day in daycare or at realatives houses they do not get to see him untill 6pm or after and then they have dinner and go to bed while i try to fit in as many hours of work as possible when i dont have my children because i dont work when they are with me because i want to spend every second with them while i can..
Is this fair?????
Kristen,
“My kids”… “deserve”…” I allowed”… Yikes!
FYI, you weren’t a “stay at home mum”, you were a “married stay at home mum”. The time you spent with the kids wasn’t because you were a better person than “work at a job dad”, it was because he worked outside the home. It could also be said that you have no experience as a working parent, and since that’s what the future holds…
It’s not about what has past, but what the future holds. The future is you both working supporting yourselves and the children. Your children will benefit by having their father in their lives. If you continue the 50/50 plan, he’ll put in the time.
It’s great that you have a job that is flexible, but your work example doesn’t hold water. The only reason you are able to work full time AND make your work hours kid focused is because he’s got the kids while you are putting in the hours. If you succeeded in making him a twice a month parent, you’d be the one with the daycare issue. If you really do have extra time, then put the kids first (not yourself) and offer to provide some of the daycare WITHOUT trying to limit his overnights. If the reason that you spend so much time with the kids is that you are underemployed, you need to understand that YOU have a responsibilty to support yourself and the kids, and that means being away from them in exchange for a paycheck.
Be a little cautious about thinking that the kids prefer you over their dad. While some of that may be because of the past time differential you mentioned, kids also have a tendency to adopt a loyalty to who they are with at the time (so your Husband might feel the same way). If they do prefer you, know that it is natural for kids to prefer one parent over another (it will also change as they grow, and if #1 favors you, expect that #2 will favor dad), but to a kid, it doesn’t mean that they don’t love or need the other parent. You might also do a self check and make sure that you are not causing some of it through words or body language. It’s very easy to do.
You might also think twice about what you think the ideal plan is. If you look at what the experts say is best for kids by age group, spending most of their time with you is no more age appropriate than alternating weeks. Children like your youngest, shouldn’t go for more than a day or so without seeing the other parent.
I know I am totally late getting in on this discussion, but I saw it referenced on thegrownupchild (Carolyn’s) blog, so I thought I’d take a look. Great discussion.
I think Kirsten hinted at an important piece that had really been ignored up to that point — age and the individual needs of any given child. Personally, I think a 50/50 (physical) arrangement becomes more appropriate and easy on the children (the foci, here) as they get older. Younger children frequently benefit from having a primary household, as this gives them more of a sense of security and stability. Hell, divorce is confusing enough! Also, what does the child want? I know most courts don’t really consider what a child wants until they are 12 or so, but I personally think that is pretty silly. And we cannot ignore the quality of the father-child and mother-child relationships prior to the breakup of the relationship. Which parent does the child relate to more (children generally prefer same sex parents as they enter adolescence)? Which parent knows and is better able to execute the regimen? Which parent has a better grasp for the kid’s social and emotional needs? If the answer to all these (and related ones) is truly “both of us,” then maybe 50/50 is appropriate for your situation. Sadly, we all know that one parent is generally better equipped in these areas – regardless of gender.
One of the erroneous assumptions in the comments above seems to be that quantity of time equals quality of the parent-child relationship. I’m afraid that is not the case. In fact, noncustodial dads are often revered in the eyes of their children because they DON’T spend as much time. These dads are frequently referred to as “Disneyland Dad,” or fathers who spend most of their time engaging in fun activities because they want to take advantage of their time with their kids. And the custodial mom is stuck as the bad co. It is up to each parent to make the time they DO have with their children meaningful and special. Interestingly, most of the extant literature on this topic has shown that “the other parent” (usually the dad) don’t significantly impact children’s overall socio-emotional functioning…that is not to say that the other parent plays no part. In fact, studies show that dads do more to contribute to the self-esteem of girls than moms. Also, dysfunction in the parent-parent relationship affects kids in a major way.
In the end, I think the focus should be less on the “time with each parent” and more about how to effectively coparent, as this would likely alleviate the need for any strict regimen. All parents (primary and secondary) need breaks from their kids. If the parents can “get out of their feelings” about each other, then an extra night or few hours of quality time would actually be much appreciated. A lot of the time, it is the parents who alienate each other (and themselves) from the children, and this also causes the children distress during those “kicking and screaming” times of transition. Kids notice a lot more than we give them credit for, and not saying anything bad about the other parent isn’t always enough. Parents need to work together. Parents need to put the developmental needs of their children first. Parents need to communicate and figure out a system that works for the child first, and hopefully that can accommodate them. If you are not willing to do that, perhaps that is the best gauge for determining how much time is appropriate. We get so caught up in our own selfish desires that we easily forget that the needs of the child are paramount…and each child’s need are different.
Interesting comments here from both sides. I saw a movie some time back called “Who Gets The House” where the kids decided that if mom and dad were divorcing THEY (the kids) should stay in the house they knew and loved and the parents could switch places each week, since they were the ones “divorcing,” not the kids. They even went so far as to have a friend’s dad (who was a lawyer) draw up legal papers indicating they wanted to stay in the house and the parents could do the switching. Much less disrupting for the kids. I think it is a unique concept, and something to think about.
coparenting,
“Disney land dad” is a derogatory term used by mothers, not a term to show that children “revere” their absent or marginalized fathers.
Quantity of time doesn’t matter if you have no intention to impact the child in a meaningful (parental) way. There is simply no way to parent if you are a “visitor”.
While I grew up my parents were separated. Now my mother for good reason never let me be around my father. This later caused a lot of problems between her and me. I do not think that it’s very smart for one parent to talk negatively about the other parent. YOUR CHILDREN WILL HOLD THIS AGEENST YOU. No matter how much u think that said child is on (your side). This is not the way things work in the mind of a child. Like was mentioned earlier children really do tend to take the side of whichever parent they are talking to. Just as there is nothing that your child could ever do to make u stop loving them it does work the same in reverse. This is unconditional love. And no matter how bad things get, when u love someone unconditionally u do not want to hear bad things said about them. No matter whom it is saying it. If u had parents like mine u know what I am talking about. And if u are these parents: you are in no way improving the way your child looks at the other parent, Ur just pissing them off. They may not act like it, but they do not forget so easily,
As far as custody goes I have friends that did the 50 50 thing as children. It’s really not such a pricy thing in a child’s eyes. Yes it is a little bit of an inconvenience. Mostly because in a perfect world all parents would stay together and then again in that world it rains puppy dogs and gumballs down from the sky. Point being that children do need both of their parents in there life and it is really sad how there are people that are capable of being so selfish. This is the reason that it’s so hard for people like myself. With this flawed system.
My soon to be (x-wife) is a really good mother. And I do love this woman with everything that I am. While making a carrier choice that she has wanted since middle school sends her across the country she is suddenly under some allusion that our marriage isn’t working and we do nothing but fight. wich it was really not. So when she gets back I am just supposed to hand over our child to move with her to a different state. Now everything is really sudden and I have spoken with her lawyer who is trying to draw up papers in winch there is a 5050 situation stretched across the country at times maybe even the globe. No affiance to the armed forces but she made these choices and she could get deployed at any time. She is trying to fight me for primary physical custody and though our son is barly a todler she has to have it written that he goes to school wile with her. And I have summers while we rotate the holidays. Now maybe it’s just me since I am so (one-sided)
I feel that it would be better for a child to have a stable home. Going to the same school. And do summer playtime in all the different places her job forces her. Now here is my problem with the system that maybe someone has a solution. I can keep my word yet I don’t trust this woman that I apparently do not know. As far as I checked and the layers I talk to. Everyone says my only option would be to apply for the divorce and temporary custody in my state until my wife and I try to kill each other for a title. (Primary). There has to be another way besides trying to take her motherly rights without and losing my child.
It really is shameful how we treat our children as if they are possessions to be fought over. When all that is needed is for us all to step outside our box. Take a look at the situation and decide what is best for the child.
ur (disny land dad) also may may be at a disatvantige as a father being that. he may be to scared to properly disaplin the child out of fear the child may take much needed disaplin as the father just being mean. this is y in my view most shildren with separated parents tend to be a little spoiled because there parents are to worried about staying in there good graces than putting values that the children need. — daddy may have grounded you, but your not grounded hear.—
Disenfranchising, Demeaning, and Demoralizing Divorced Dads. Fathers must learn they have lost their children in divorces these days and must know when to just walk away. Almost all custody situations in the US are where the father pays for all and the mother enjoys all. If she sees the other make more money they go to court to get more support for their child (really themselves). Fathers can’t win walk away from your children you’ve lost.