50/50 Equal Parenting: The Debate

[Rioe]

I get the material change here was the children’s wishes to be with their father more. But if you go back to another posters other thread, she states that it would be detrimental for the kids to lose time with dad .. that told me a lot. It told me that they enjoy spending time with him. It’s only a matter of time before they also express their wishes to see him more.

In this closed thread http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...tml#post215841 she says:

]I HAVE considered a reduction in custody. I just think that less time with them would be detrimental to my kids. I would have to explain why daddy is getting less time now because they would need justification at their ages. I think they're too young to hear the adult stuff. I'm not a mom who needs to slander my ex to my kids despite all of your comments about me being jealous and throwing tantrums etc.

So I interpret that as her thinking it's not the loss of time with the father itself that would be detrimental for the children, but that it would be detrimental for them to be told the reduction is because he's not a good father.

I agree that we are only getting one side here, but arguing with her because of misinterpretation of her words should be stopped.

Even if you weren't misinterpreting, less time being detrimental doesn't automatically mean that more time is beneficial. For ALL parents there's a sweet spot where the time spent provides the most benefit. Ideally, that sweet spot would be over 50%, and the parents compromise by meeting at 50-50. Maximum contact principle. Children with a bad parent still need to spend some time with them, but should spend the majority with the good parent. For some, however, that sweet spot may be less, where the children derive benefit from knowing that parent, but are not around so much that the poor parenting has a chance to cause problems. And as Rockscan pointed out, sometimes children are caught between two poor parents with sweet spots under 50%, and there's nothing anybody can really do.

Anyways, this is the debate thread, not the advice to Ange71727 thread. So I'll just be general and say that anyone who thinks a default 50-50 is wrong for their situation has to have solid evidence why this is the case. Documented journaling of poor parenting examples would be a start.

[LovingFather32]

Hi Rioe

All I'm saying here is that it doesn't sound like the kids are having a tough time at dad's and are thriving at almost 50%. (Why not just push it to 50%) What's the "criteria"? for the big court fight? What am I missing?

She also stated that dad loves them, they already do 50/50 weekends, dad's g/f is good to them, etc. I'm not sure what I'm missing here besides she just doesn't want to. If she plans to go to court and say "I think he's doing this for money"..she may not get far, just as the parent didn't with the same reasoning in the caselaw just posted.

Anyways, this is the debate thread, not the advice to Ange71727 thread.

Agree. But it's nice to have a case like this to refer to as many parents are in the exact same situation and not sure how to navigate.

I'll just be general and say that anyone who thinks a default 50-50 is wrong for their situation has to have solid evidence why this is the case. Documented journaling of poor parenting examples would be a start

I would agree with this for sure. But setting up a tape recording of you and your child is not the way to go about it.

[LovingFather32]

Thank you for posting this. This is exactly what I meant in my post.

At the end of the day, he is fit enough to have them for 35% of the time and nothing I've read from her has convinced me otherwise.

She is going to piss away thousands and effectively ruin her and possibly her children's financial future because this is the hill she's chosen to die on.

I honestly do NOT know how one spins that to their children. How do you tell them it was worth all that money and the ruining of their childhoods?

Precisely. It's not worth a court fight. Some posters here will say "yea..so dad should give in and not want an equal relationship". I say, 50/50 all the way, save money (court costs).. put it towards their education and call it a day.
Parents need to stop denying equal relationships when there's no grounds to do so....period.

[trinton]

I'm not sure what I'm missing here besides she just doesn't want to.

She just doesn't want to. She doesn't want to just because. And no I'm not taking her side.

Cross examination:

You have stated that you fear for the well being of your children under the father's care correct?

Yes.

You have been allowing the father to exercise his access , correct?

Yes

and have had no issue with the child having access with the father correct?

I have.

Were your concerns that he was emotionally abusive to your child?

Yes

Did you ever share your concerns with the correct authorities?

Yes I called CAS.

They didn't have any concerns and closed the file, correct?

Yes.

You have no other concerns with the child spending more time with the father correct?

I do, he just want's more time to avoid paying child support.

Judge: I'm ordering 50-50. case closed.

And as Rockscan pointed out, sometimes children are caught between two poor parents with sweet spots under 50%, and there's nothing anybody can really do.

The courts can do something about it, and so can the OCL, and the lawyers, and the parent who's got the short end of the stick. You may not get what you wanted but at least you did something about it.

[stripes]

I think what Rockscan's trying to say is that ideally, both parents want an amount of time with Kid that adds up to 100%. So if parent A wants 50% and parent B wants 50% - all good. If A wants 25% and B wants 75% - all good.

Court battles arise both parents' desired time adds up to more than 100% - for example, when A wants 50% and B wants 75%.

And I think Rockscan is referring to the situation in which both parents' wishes add up to less than 100% - if A only wants the kids for 30% of the time and B only wants 25% - which is a situation that really sucks for the kids.

[Janus]

While I am generally in favour of 50/50, I also think there may be some cases where it is not black and white.

While I am generally in favour of women voting, I think there may be some cases where it is not black and white. For example, some women are insane, and other women are criminals. Therefore, just to be on the safe side, I think that women should have to prove that they are capable of voting before they are allowed to vote.

I also want to point out that some women don't vote, and other women don't want to vote, so voting is very much an individual choice. Rather than just assume that all women want to vote, it would probably be best to be cautious and allow the courts to determine whether a woman should vote on a case by case basis.

[Ange71727]

In this closed thread http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...tml#post215841 she says:


So I interpret that as her thinking it's not the loss of time with the father itself that would be detrimental for the children, but that it would be detrimental for them to be told the reduction is because he's not a good father.

I agree that we are only getting one side here, but arguing with her because of misinterpretation of her words should be stopped.

Even if you weren't misinterpreting, less time being detrimental doesn't automatically mean that more time is beneficial. For ALL parents there's a sweet spot where the time spent provides the most benefit. Ideally, that sweet spot would be over 50%, and the parents compromise by meeting at 50-50. Maximum contact principle. Children with a bad parent still need to spend some time with them, but should spend the majority with the good parent. For some, however, that sweet spot may be less, where the children derive benefit from knowing that parent, but are not around so much that the poor parenting has a chance to cause problems. And as Rockscan pointed out, sometimes children are caught between two poor parents with sweet spots under 50%, and there's nothing anybody can really do.

Anyways, this is the debate thread, not the advice to Ange71727 thread. So I'll just be general and say that anyone who thinks a default 50-50 is wrong for their situation has to have solid evidence why this is the case. Documented journaling of poor parenting examples would be a start.

I finally have some time to respond to this. YES^^^ Thank you Rioe. My words were of course misinterpreted. I have agreed to keep custody as is because I don't want to get into the "adult" talk with my kids. They don't know that any of this is going on and I think it would be detrimental to them to know that their Dad is doing something awful to their mom or is doing something that a court would penalize him for. They shouldn't have to think of their dad that way. I am just not that vindictive. It is a tricky situation that I monitor closely. Who's to say that his manipulations and lies aren't messing them up already? I know that they still have a positive attitude about me and come to me whenever they hear things they need to question. To me, that says that even though this shit is happening, I am able to have conversations with them that diffuse and satisfy them. Should I have to do that? No. But I handle it best I can and it is working for now.

This post is exactly what I have been trying to say. People here think that 50/50 is the ideal in my case, without really knowing everything. I know the details and I know what I consider to be the "sweet spot" in access. My ex doesn't agree now but he agreed for 8 years. Nothing has changed for him, including the fact that he is still causing problems. The kids love their dad but I KNOW that they enjoy the fact that my house is 'home base' and they go to daddy's on their predictable schedule they've gotten used to for 8 years. It is obviously not the popular viewpoint on here but that's ok. I am sticking to it. I have already stated that if my kids asked to go to daddy's more in the future I would completely comply. I don't understand how that doesn't satisfy some of you. As a side note, I DO believe 50/50 can be awesome and should be the starting point at time of separation. It's not like I think it can never be the way! If my husband and I were to split right now (without any major issues that would warrant a reduction in custody), this is what we would agree on most likely. This is not what my ex wanted. FOR 8 YEARS. I also don't think that just because someone has a certain time allotment that it needs to stay in place forever, just because I feel that for my case at the moment.

[Ange71727]

Hi Rioe

All I'm saying here is that it doesn't sound like the kids are having a tough time at dad's and are thriving at almost 50%. (Why not just push it to 50%) What's the "criteria"? for the big court fight? What am I missing?

She also stated that dad loves them, they already do 50/50 weekends, dad's g/f is good to them, etc. I'm not sure what I'm missing here besides she just doesn't want to. If she plans to go to court and say "I think he's doing this for money"..she may not get far, just as the parent didn't with the same reasoning in the caselaw just posted.


Agree. But it's nice to have a case like this to refer to as many parents are in the exact same situation and not sure how to navigate.


I would agree with this for sure. But setting up a tape recording of you and your child is not the way to go about it.

Guess what? I have a documented journal full of many examples of bad parenting calls. I have an organized binder as well where I keep all the emails and have written my notes attached to them. I have about 15 homework and reading logs from the school that demonstrate that I am the only one really giving a shit about my kids' schooling. Yes, I tape recorded my daughter having a conversation about what she heard about me at daddy's house. I didn't lead anything and I didn't probe. I simply recorded. I have already mentioned that I won't be using it in front of a judge as most of you seem to think this is a bad idea. Point taken on that one.

[len14]

THIS from Stripes is exactly what I believe in MY case:
"Custody is not black and white: either Parent is a terrible parent and should get zero access, or Parent is a good parent and should get 50%. Lots of parents fall somewhere in between - they can't or don't want to cope with all the demands of equal parenting, but they don't totally suck either. Holding the line at 35% (or 20% or whatever) could be a reasonable compromise, depending on the situation. It's certainly possible for someone to be a good-enough parent at less-than-50%, but a not-so-good-enough parent when it comes to taking equal responsibility."

Read this article as well:

www.drgary.ca/Paper_on_access_schedules.pdf

He talks about how children go through "switching" when they are subject to equal time in two polarized families. He states:

This changing, or “switching” as the children often put it, accomplishes a good relationship with each parent, at the expense of the child’s development of a consistent self and personality. The more polarized the parents, the more the child must change, and the less the child can develop his/her own personality.

He also goes on to state:

Both experience and research show that equal time is not necessary to achieve adequate and sufficient parenting. Even in married families, time and involvement with the children is often not equal."

It is actually a pretty interesting article and perhaps adds a different perspective to this thread. I agree that you should focus less on my situation and maybe serve to highlight different viewpoints. I assure you that there are differing opinions on this topic and we don't all need to agree on it. I heard privately from SEVERAL people on here who were not willing to put forth their views publicly because they didn't want to be scrutinized for them. That is the truth. I know that in my case, which you do not have all the facts on, I feel best interests of my KIDS do not require 50-50 access. We disagree and that is fine. I do want to add, (and I think someone brought up before), that sometimes posters can become wrapped up in what is best for the PARENT and not what is best for the kids. I notice that you gave ZERO mention to the fact that I stated I had a child with special needs (ADHD, medication,etc). Consistency has been key to his success and it has been a long road there. This is absolutely a huge factor for consideration.
Anyway, all I am saying is that in a thread where you wish to discuss the 50-50 argument, you should be open to the opinion that is opposite to yours, for consideration at least.

(Sorry I can't figure out how to get out of italics mode)

The article that you've posted is probably over a decade old; contains no reference to any studies, annotations or body of research; and Dr. Gary's practice is permanently closed.

Did you read the article you quoted? Do you understand that you hold the power in making your children happy? It's all you! The Dr. that you chose to reference says 50/50 is the best state for children if the parents are cooperative. Be cooperative and you create peace and harmony for your children.

The reality is that our children will probably live in a world without the gender inequalities in family law that we experience today; and I will bet money that when your children are adults they will judge you harshly for playing gatekeeper between them and their father simply because you are comfortable in your routine.

A judge may grant you status quo, but they will have legal and public documentation that their father fought for them and you interfered because you 'think' it's about money and because you 'think' you know what's best for them without even trying.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arabian]

In fairness to Ange71727 I would encourage readers to refer back to her original posts (January 3rd, 11:32).

At this point the matter is simply between the two lawyers - notice of motion(s) have not been filed.

Throughout her posts Ange has specifically stated that she has no problem with children spending more time with the father. She has also explicitly stated that her objection to his wanting 50/50 custody has nothing to do with money. However, the father should have adjusted CS last year with his change of income. The father is currently in arrears.

As with any poster/thread on this forum - we only know of background as contributed by the poster. As a community we accept the poster's statements as being truthful UNLESS there are glaring inconsistencies as time goes on (this is why it is nice to check back to posters' earlier threads).

[len14]

In fairness to Ange71727 I would encourage readers to refer back to her original posts (January 3rd, 11:32).

At this point the matter is simply between the two lawyers - notice of motion(s) have not been filed.

Throughout her posts Ange has specifically stated that she has no problem with children spending more time with the father. She has also explicitly stated that her objection to his wanting 50/50 custody has nothing to do with money. However, the father should have adjusted CS last year with his change of income. The father is currently in arrears.

As with any poster/thread on this forum - we only know of background as contributed by the poster. As a community we accept the poster's statements as being truthful UNLESS there are glaring inconsistencies as time goes on (this is why it is nice to check back to posters' earlier threads).

I've read all the posts. There have been many references to 'judges' in the entries which demonstrates the intent to battle in the courtroom if needed.

I agree that Ange has made it clear that it isn't on $, however she believes the fathers motivation for 50/50 is a decrease in CS and not more time.

CS and access are treated separately within our legal system, so I am applying the same principles. Ange has the right to arrears and whatever CS offset she's entitled case closed. The fact that arrears is used as a bargaining chip to prevent or negotiate 50/50 access is unsettling to me.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ange71727]

I've read all the posts. There have been many references to 'judges' in the entries which demonstrates the intent to battle in the courtroom if needed.

I agree that Ange has made it clear that it isn't on $, however she believes the fathers motivation for 50/50 is a decrease in CS and not more time.

CS and access are treated separately within our legal system, so I am applying the same principles. Ange has the right to arrears and whatever CS offset she's entitled case closed. The fact that arrears is used as a bargaining chip to prevent or negotiate 50/50 access is unsettling to me.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

His lawyer told him not to pay me the arrears. Can you give me a reason why this would be? Honestly I would like to know if there is a legit reason. The dates are black and white in our agreement. My ex specifically told me that he is withholding it but wouldn't say why. Could it possibly be that he intends to use it as a bargaining chip??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arabian]

Early in my litigation days after separation my ex used to tell me that his "lawyer told him to do xxxxx" - I was outraged. I soon learned that what my ex was telling me was total and utter bullshit. My lawyer was in very close communication with his lawyer (they actually had worked in the same law firm and were social friends) and I was assured that the crapola that my ex was telling me was totally false. So, be extremely wary of what your ex is telling you his lawyer instructed him to do.

Any competent lawyer would not advise a client to not pay CS, particularly if they are serious about going to court to change custody. I suspect that your ex's lawyer told him the exact opposite - get your act together buddy cause I don't want to go to court with you owing arrears...judges have little patience for people who don't pay court-ordered CS.

[LovingFather32]

My words were of course misinterpreted. I have agreed to keep custody as is because I don't want to get into the "adult" talk with my kids.

I misinterpreted the part in red below? I get what you're referring to the sentence following .. but you do say that less time would be detrimental. So the children would be hurt more by the "explanation" than the fact that they can't "hang with their dad more"?

Originally Posted by Ange71727 View Post
]I HAVE considered a reduction in custody. I just think that less time with them would be detrimental to my kids. I would have to explain why daddy is getting less time now because they would need justification at their ages.

You're darn right they'd need justification (love that word). I agree 100%.

I have a documented journal full of many examples of bad parenting calls.I have an organized binder as well where I keep all the emails and have written my notes attached to them.

I know Rioe suggested this a few posts earlier , and I'd recommend it for certain cases, but not all. Anyone can jot stuff down in a notebook. How long have you been building a case against him, or documenting his bad parenting?

The judge may decide they require the particulars on why you allowed the regime of near equal parenting for almost 8 years if he was so terrible and inept as a parent. Any good judge anyways. Did you contact CAS or the police at any time to help protect your children?

If you're telling the truth about the massive logs and binders than you weren't acting in the children's best interests allowing near equal parenting for nearly a decade. You should have contacted authorities if it was that bad.

They don't know that any of this is going on and I think it would be detrimental to them to know that their Dad is doing something awful to their mom or is doing something that a court would penalize him for.

I'm confused because you've discussed in many threads that they "really" know what's going on. You say he talks bad about you, etc, you're recording them .. how could they not know what's going on?

Yes, I tape recorded my daughter having a conversation about what she heard about me at daddy's house. I didn't lead anything and I didn't probe.

You were surely emotional when you did this. The kids probably felt what was going on. Leading questions are very hard not to ask when emotional and speaking with children also. I don't know their ages but if my mom pulled out a tape recorder when I was a young boy and made me recount a Dr visit I'd weirded the heck out. Kids are smarter than we think. But anyways, sounds like you understand that was a mistake. You don't need proof .. he does, if its true.

I agree that Ange has made it clear that it isn't on $, however she believes the fathers motivation for 50/50 is a decrease in CS and not more time.
CS and access are treated separately within our legal system, so I am applying the same principles. Ange has the right to arrears and whatever CS offset she's entitled case closed. The fact that arrears is used as a bargaining chip to prevent or negotiate 50/50 access is unsettling to me.

Yea, most judges don't buy it either.

In Gill v. Chiang, 2011 ONSC 6803 the mother told the courts the same thing.

James stopped paying child support entirely and abruptly in April, 2010 and I believe that was for the sole purpose of putting pressure on me to agree to the parenting change that he was requesting, namely, that the residence schedule in the Arbitration Award of Linda Chodos be changed to a 50/50 or week on week off arrangement”

Judge ignored it and granted 50/50. I cited it a few pages back.

[QUOTE]

A judge may grant you status quo, but they will have legal and public documentation that their father fought for them and you interfered because you 'think' it's about money and because you 'think' you know what's best for them without even trying.

Very true. Seems like he really wants to see his kids more and probably won't give up easily on this extra time. It will be in the court records that there is no acquiescence on his part. Maybe in the past .. not now.

He presents a good case and the judge won't see any problem with giving a little extra time to him. It will also minimize contact with one another, and if you got a parallel parenting regime you wouldn't have to deal with each other. I'm sure the judge might suggest this as an option.

I'd love to see the judges face when she opens her 6 Binders and notes or whatever of bad parenting skills covering the past 8 years. lol

[len14]

Agree with Arabian... I have a hard time believing that a lawyer would advise their client to withhold obligatory support or arrears. That would be courtroom suicide. I would say it was for shock and affect on you.

From my experience, regardless of your dispute resolution avenue i.e. Mediation, arbitration or judge - access and support will be discussed separately. If he uses it as a bargaining chip, he will lose credibility and judges don't like children treated as property.

I am mother who has a 50/50 shared parenting plan and it can really work well if you want it to. It is a choice that I have to make every day, but my two kids are happy, healthy emotionally and loved by so many people. I focus on the quality of our time together not the quantity of time.

Before I divorced there father was a part-time dad. Once we separated he asked for 50/50, I was skeptical bc he had rarely changed a diaper let alone stay up all night with a sick child. But let's be real, it's not as if we had to 'try-out' or 'convince' someone that we were good enough to be our kids mom, I supported my ex in the transition and my children feel just as secure, safe and loved by their father as they are with me.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk