Asking for 50/50

[MrToronto]

Choices made by couples when together are not the same choices they would make if they split up.

Roles are assumed for the sake of the family unit.

The Courts instead of saying "all bets are off" when couples separate lean toward the past and who was the primary caregiver.

And that's the problem.

Can a man breastfeed? If he can't do that then he better find something useful to do.

Maternity leave... this Trojan Horse guarantee's who will be a Primary Parent, it's often used against a parent later who worked so the couple could eat and have shelter.

The Courts don't recognize the new realities when relationships fall apart they use old realities.

A new reality is a child having to stay with somebody while the couples go to war....One parent gets/takes temporarily custody......in a 50-50 world it shouldn't matter who helped themselves to temporary custody....but it does for Judges in there determinations (why upset the status quo)

The other new reality is money "temporarily" (according to the tables) while the matter is being "worked out".

The saying... Never judge a "person" until you've walked a mile in the that persons shoe's" is fitting for any parent NOT shown the door in a relationship breakdown.

Time is used against a parent who has been shown the door, Courts use it against the rebuilding emotionally screwed up parent ALWAYS...when determining custody and access.

If 50-50 is presumed then the Court can't dwell in the couples PAST

The parent shown the door must be given a grace period to get re-established

the word SOLE CUSTODY should be abolished

[Straittohell]

What Mr. T said. Especially the "walking in other persons shoes" bit.

[arabian]

I can see why 'parenting plans' become extremely important in the custody dispute.

There was a case posted on this forum last summer (if I can find it I will repost it) where mother was given temporary full custody with father getting access. Father was breadwinner. Mother got leave of the court to move the child to same town as her relatives, claiming she needed the support from her family to get on her feet. 3 years later, when case was heard, the court gave the father sole custody. Mother had failed to take advantage of generous child-care opportunities with her own family (instead putting kids in daycare) and had failed to show she had re-established herself with full time employment. Mother even went so far as to get a full-time job in the father's community. Child custody, with police enforcement, was awarded immediately to the father.

So in the case of our friend LF32, it would be incumbent of his ex to show a) she has taken advantage of free child care provided by her family by b) getting a full-time job where she can support the child.

I think courts are being less and less supportive to parents who merely claim ownership of the children and who simply sit on welfare to be stay-at-home-parents.

We have often read about fathers having to 'couch surf' while paying high support to mothers who remain in matrimonial home. This is hardly a level playing field.

The 'plan of action' (parenting plan) and how effectively one executes it should be given much greater weight in determining custody IMO.

[stripes]

I have 50/50 (week by week) and our divorce order states if Xmas falls in Parent 1's week, Parent 2 has the option of having Kid either on Xmas Eve (overnight) or Xmas Day (overnight). That way Xmas Day itself gets split between the parents.

This year Xmas falls in my week, and I'm waiting to let me know if he wants Kid on Xmas Eve or Xmas night (or neither - he has that option). He has remarried and has a stepchild whose schedule needs to be co-ordinated with Kid, so his arrangements are more complicated than mine, so I'm fine with him deciding when he wants Kid. My big holiday celebration will be with bf's brother and sister in law, and they haven't decided whether to hold it on the 24th or or 25th - because that depends on the work schedules of their adult children. So this year I'm saying "everybody just let me know who's going where when and I'll be flexible".

[Links17]

I do not support a 50/50 split as a default. I think each case should be evaluated by it's unique charateristics.

This is the lawyer's argument and its flawed.

Nobody thinks arrangements should always be 50/50 but just about everybody thinks arrangements should be 50/50 UNLESS proven otherwise

The shifting of the burden of proof will eradicate a huge chunk of status quo battles, legal battles, maneuvering etc....

Its actually like no-fault divorce, sure one person might have been more at fault etc.... but at the end of the day the court said it costs too much money to determine that and is a waste of time. One parent might be slightly better but overall they both offer different qualities to raising children so unless there is something to prevent it there should be shared custody.

Nowadays, when I read court judgements I see cases where there are pretty insignificant reasons for not awarding shared custody (one case recently because a guy was renovating the house and even though he was doing renos when the kid wasn't there the judge still felt it could be a disturbance.) That was UTTER BULLSHIT because the judge took a temporary situation and used it as justification to create a permanent.

At the end of the day, I think my kids would have been better off if I gave them the 40k upon graduation than the lawyers of my ex and I, ask your kids see what they'd say...

[wantmyfreedom]

Either way if it is default or not....If you have one high conflict party that is hell bent on having a "my way of the highway" attitude you can bet your last dollar it is going to be a damn expensive court battle.

In retrspect I wish I had saved all that "court" money for my kids. Unfortunately I was forced to defend myself in family court. I was however awarded most of my costs.

It isn't the system. It's highly conflicted individuals manipulating the system to punish their ex's.

[wantmyfreedom]

[QUOTE=Links17;186733]

Nobody thinks arrangements should always be 50/50 but just about everybody thinks arrangements should be 50/50 UNLESS proven otherwise

I agree with you on this 100%.

[rockscan]

It isn't the system. It's highly conflicted individuals manipulating the system to punish their ex's.

This. 300%

[Links17]

This. 300%

NO, it IS the system. It puts people who already don't like each other in a huge conflictual situation.

the 40% threshold is a legal fiction that has enormous consequences and becomes the hill to die on in many cases.

The 40% threshold is MEANINGLESS it is an arbitrary line created by the law and people fight over it and in fact it is RIGHT that they fight over it. Nobody should accept 39% custody just as an excuse to pay their ex-wife (yes I said wife because that is the case 95%+ of the time).


Get rid of 40%, make shared custody the default unless proven otherwise, save the children and starve the lawyers.

[rockscan]

Then the problem with the system is zero punishment and months of court delays. Custodial parents know they can get away with this bs because non-custodial parents arent going to go to court to enforce every last battle. Look at what LF32 is going through. Shoot, look at Serene's husband who has to file motions just to get his ex on board. The system is useless because it allows parents to get away with crap.

[HammerDad]

I do not support a 50/50 split as a default. I think each case should be evaluated by it's unique charateristics.

When you have two parents who make things work and remain relatively conflict free then absolutely yes, yes, yes. It's awesome for the kids.

When there are conflicted parties then that has to be factored in. 50/50 will just drive the kids nuts with all the conflict. Not all parents take the higher road.

The flip side to the coin of no 50/50 in high-conflict cases is that it creates an incentive to be high conflict. Why should any parent be rewarded with a greater parenting time schedule simply because they choose not to be reasonable?

In my opinion, that would be the perfect instance to impose 50/50. Take out the incentive to be unreasonable and there is a greater possibility of them acting reasonably.

When a judge simply says he doesn't care if you guys can cooperate. That the kids will be shared and the adults will have to learn to act like adults, people may start to understand that there will be no winner. That being uncooperative only makes their own lives difficult, which in turn makes the kids lives more difficult.

50/50 should be a case by case scenario. But the only factors that should be used to determine whether or not it is awarded should be abuse. And by abuse I mean physical and sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, abuse of narcotics etc. Real factors that would limit the parents ability to properly parent.

But being unreasonable or uncooperative? Who cares. If a parent can't act like an adult, they need to drink a huge cup of getthefuckoverthemselves or find themselves at the short end of a judgment later on.

[nogoingback]

The flip side to the coin of no 50/50 in high-conflict cases is that it creates an incentive to be high conflict. Why should any parent be rewarded with a greater parenting time schedule simply because they choose not to be reasonable?

In my opinion, that would be the perfect instance to impose 50/50. Take out the incentive to be unreasonable and there is a greater possibility of them acting reasonably.

Hear, hear.
Having been on the receiving end of litigation to reduce my parenting time based on the legal precedent of cases where a parents' (typically Dads') parenting time was reduced due to high conflict, I definitely concur with hammerdad. Creating and sustaining conflict was and remains an obvious tactic of my ex's, but fortunately has not worked well for her. It is an old and lame argument.
Edward Kruk has written an excellent book based on research that shows "that conflict is reduced in equal parenting households, from the perspective of both children (Fabricius, 2011) and parents (Bauserman, 2012), and in cases where inter-parental conflict is not reduced, equal parenting seems to ameliorate most of the negative effects of such conflict on children (Fabricius, 2011)."
Equal Parenting and the Quality of Parent-Child Attachments | Psychology Today

[LovingFather32]

Tayken Wrote:

"Two parents, two responsible adults. Unless one of the parent's demonstrates they are acting in an irresponsible and irrational manner with regards to "custody decisions" the default should be full joint legal custody".
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...23/index2.html

[wantmyfreedom]

The flip side to the coin of no 50/50 in high-conflict cases is that it creates an incentive to be high conflict. Why should any parent be rewarded with a greater parenting time schedule simply because they choose not to be reasonable?

In my opinion, that would be the perfect instance to impose 50/50. Take out the incentive to be unreasonable and there is a greater possibility of them acting reasonably.

When a judge simply says he doesn't care if you guys can cooperate. That the kids will be shared and the adults will have to learn to act like adults, people may start to understand that there will be no winner. That being uncooperative only makes their own lives difficult, which in turn makes the kids lives more difficult.

50/50 should be a case by case scenario. But the only factors that should be used to determine whether or not it is awarded should be abuse. And by abuse I mean physical and sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, abuse of narcotics etc. Real factors that would limit the parents ability to properly parent.

But being unreasonable or uncooperative? Who cares. If a parent can't act like an adult, they need to drink a huge cup of getthefuckoverthemselves or find themselves at the short end of a judgment later on.

In a perfect world people will act more reasonably. In the real world people will not cooperate with each other even if they are forced to. This is exactly why mediation works for some and not others.

In a forced 50/50 the kids will suffer from their parent's jackass behaviour.

Re read my post. You have to factor in the material circumstances for each family. Child's routine and schooling district are couple of examples to consider.

[Straittohell]

In a perfect world people will act more reasonably. In the real world people will not cooperate with each other even if they are forced to. This is exactly why mediation works for some and not others.

In a forced 50/50 the kids will suffer from their parent's jackass behaviour.

Re read my post. You have to factor in the material circumstances for each family. Child's routine and schooling district are couple of examples to consider.

And in a case of sole custody, they WON'T suffer from a parent's jackass behaviour?

In reality, joint 50-50 mitigates a lot of the bad behaviours that can occur from unreasonable parties.