What is fair in Child Custody?

[Denisem]

I wanted shared

When I first separated from my ex I asked for shared. When I received the first communication from ex's lawyer it stated my ex was willing to give me sole. I was confused.....so my lawyer sent off a letter asking why sole? My ex called me and explained it would be cheaper for him if I had sole....I was so mad at first and then realized it is a lot cheaper for him now. I wish I told tell my kids his money came before them...I will never tell them that...I could never hurt them that way. I wish they had a father who wanted shared.

Way to go for all the Dads who put the kids before money. I now have child support and he has visits whenever he wants...if the kids will go...sometimes they don't feel like going. He also asks me to send money along with the visits so he can take them places. I do send $20.00 each when they visit him just so they don't have to sit at his place with nothing to do all weekend.
So $60.00 that I send he uses for movies, pizza and video games. The kids know I send the money. They still love their Dad and I am grateful that they do.

[Decent Dad]

It's very hard to make shared parenting work in the most ideal of circumstances - it can be done, but it's really hard work. I think that there is a strong argument for breaking down a parenting arrangement to the functions of child-care as opposed to "who gets the kids on what day" and this helps you develop a comprehensive parenting plan. My experience is that in cases where a parent just wants shared parenting for some "equality" reason, when you talk about the functions of child care and put the time share arrangement on the side, it can help the party who wants shared parenting for equality to see that it might not necessarily work for the time being. Cheers...

Shared parenting works when people are amicable. And if you are amicable you probably had a "good" divorce (i.e. no court, and for that matter, no mediation) and most likely not on these groups, forums, lists, etc. And there is a lot more give and take, helping each other.

And legislated shared parenting also works when it is a total divorce from hell. Why? Because it is then black and white. The exact same routines happen as above, except unfiortunately there is no give and take. No helping. The target parent suffers more. And if the parent gives up that right, either willingly or by neglect, that is their responsibility.

If you are out for punishment, revenge and are selfish and greedy (i.e. divorce from hell)... no parenting scheme is going to prevent the destruction of your child(ren) and the parents along with it. IMO, these kinds of people should lose their custody and perhaps their access - but they rarely do.

So, when in the divorce from hell, what would be the incentive to create any routine that is best for the children (i.e your solution of a "function of child-care") when the person is most likely placing their greedy, selfish, punishing and revengeful attitude's first?

[DadofTwoGirls]

DD,

I had a good laugh about the pool.

In my case there has been no court. But I wouldn't say it is "amicable" either. However, it is working on a tenuously functional level. Every time there is disagreement on any issue, volleys of verbal attacks are launched via e-mail. I soak up the volleys and move on. It can get kind of nuts and it stresses me and my girlfriend for a day or two each time. It's a stable period right now - so everyone is happy.

Time to crack a beer!

[Decent Dad]

mm... beer.

I've been in court for 4 years (and counting). My liver died some time back in Fall 2004.

[DadofTwoGirls]

Decent Dad,

The liver is a 5-lobed organ of happiness for a reason. Mine let's me know it's there as well.

The original question or focus of this thread was about the global merits of shared parenting and forced shared parenting.

In my experience, there are alot of dads who love their kids but don't accept the responsibility of spending time with them to influence their lives in a meaningful way. There are lots of dads ignoring their kids and crying themselves to sleep. Boo hoo.

I chose a different route. Actually, it wasn't much of a choice - it's just the way I am. Losing my kids and becoming a candy floss and fair-ride dad was not acceptable to me. From deep inside me, I needed to be a major part of their lives.

I have that; my kids are with me 50%. I have the job that supports them - and it also takes time to make that money with associated business travel. Every second week is like being a "single Dad". The job is still there with it's responsibilities.

I've lost my normal career progression because of this - all by choice. In my job, I should have moved this summer for progression and development in my company. I chose to stay here for my kids. I have no regrets and they have no idea about this.

I won't achieve the goals I had and the company had for me. But, don't pitty me, it's all for the best reason in the world - to be with my kids and give them the foundations of ethics, morality and empathy that will allow then to reach their full potential in their lives. Hopefully that will mitigate the ongoing damage by the ex whose examples are, by any observer, juvenile and wrong. It might sound like a slam from a bitter x but it's just the way it is.

I don't question the ex's love for the kids but, as a narcissist, her toolbox for parenting contains nothing but adjustable wrenches, an old set of vice grips, and a stripped #2 robertson screwdriver that she uses to open hot chocolate tins.

Anyways, I think I turned this into a rant. My point is that there are so many variables that it's hard to make a sound statement like "shared parenting is always better".

It depends on the complex set of circumstances. I personally don't think anyone should be forced into such a regime. Dads who want it will go to any lenghths for their kids. Dads who don't will go to any lengths to get out of it or manipulate it to their advantage and not their kids.

We need to remember that at the end of the day - it's about the kids. But, as parents, we still have God given rights.

Cheers!

[Duped]

In the spirit of sharing...

My ex bought a new jeep while bankrupt and purchased a home only days after discharge, go figure.

Duped

[Duped]

Perspective

To put that in perspective, my son and I are surviving off of the food bank! Really getting tiled of soup and toast. <still shaking head>

Duped

[logicalvelocity]

Duped,

as you mentioned,

To put that in perspective, my son and I are surviving off of the food bank! Really getting tiled of soup and toast. <still shaking head>

If your not receiving child support for your child, you should bring forth an action. I really do suspect that you will be successful in receiving same.

My ex bought a new jeep while bankrupt and purchased a home only days after discharge, go figure.

It does make you wonder how one could accomplish such in light of the circumstances. Regardless if ones goes bankrupt, support of a child is a paramount consideration.

lv

[Decent Dad]

Decent Dad,
The original question or focus of this thread was about the global merits of shared parenting and forced shared parenting.

I have stated this several times... you cannot:

a) force people to be parents
b) force people to have better work ethics
c) legislate good people

You cannot put a gun to someone's head and tell them to be an involved parent... BUT... you can put a gun to someone's head under the current laws. And that head is usually the divorced Dad. The courts are biased/slanted towards mothers regarding access, custody, final decisions, mobility, schedules, etc. And they are brutal against the paying parent (usually the Dad).

If the law was shared parenting; you could always opt out. But why should I have to blow my life savings to be win back my involvment? So under the current legislation, the non-involved parent can walk away. The involved parent is screwed. If the law was changed, the un-involved parent can still walk away. But at least the involved parent has something to back them up.

Finally, I guess I can't figure out our society. We want parents involved in their kids. Mothers always complaining about Dad's not helping in day-to-day. Women wanting careers. And so on. Yet in Divorce... we revert back to 1950 and it's winner take all. Simply mind boggling.

Laws and government shape our society. Church too. And the community. We get our morale and pride of citizenship from the community we are in. Do we run around and shoot each other daily. No. Do we rob each other daily no. There are societal accepted norms and no-no's. Yet in divorce it is kill or be killed. We are saying it is socially acceptable to destory parenting relationships - unless you have the cash, stamina, and luck to prove otherwise. So odd.