Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This whole "shared parenting" thing...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    What's the Rule of Thumb?

    What I'm wondering is, what is the rule of Thumb when it comes to picking your battles?

    The chili-dog story was very interesting. I feel caught in those kind of situations all the time. My ex's husband's answer for everything is that it won't kill them and they are with him, so it is none of my concern. (we 50/50 parent)

    What if he lets my daughter play about in skirts and dresses at school when she's climbing monkey bars and such? What if he lets them wear summer clothes with no coats in the winter because that's what they want to do? What if he lets them not brush their teeth at night because they don't want to? What if he lets my preschool daughter put on make-up for school? What if he lets them go for a couple of days without bathing them? None of these things will necessarily kill them, but are they appropriate? Are they worth fighting over. My kids get very confused and angry having to switch between the rules of the two homes. Especially since he appears to give into their demands much more often.

    Any thoughts on this subject would be appreciated.

    Comment


    • #32
      Rule of Thumb

      What I'm wondering is, what is the rule of Thumb when it comes to picking your battles?

      The chili-dog story was very interesting. I feel caught in those kind of situations all the time. My ex's husband's answer for everything is that it won't kill them and they are with him, so it is none of my concern. (we 50/50 parent)

      What if he lets my daughter play about in skirts and dresses at school when she's climbing monkey bars and such? What if he lets them wear summer clothes with no coats in the winter because that's what they want to do? What if he lets them not brush their teeth at night because they don't want to? What if he lets my preschool daughter put on make-up for school? What if he lets them go for a couple of days without bathing them? None of these things will necessarily kill them, but are they appropriate? Are they worth fighting over. My kids get very confused and angry having to switch between the rules of the two homes. Especially since he appears to give into their demands much more often.

      Any thoughts on this subject would be appreciated.
      Your posting is very thoughtful and actually, it kind of helps bring home the point that in order to make 50/50 work, ya have to pick yer battles.

      So, how do you pick your battles. Well, a lot of it depends on the degree of conflict that exists between the parents. For example, is he going to get his back up when you express concern to the point that it will significantly increase conflict and force you both back into court?

      Your questions about what he might do are kind of interesting because a lot of those same issues emerge in functional marriages - who hasn't heard of a teenager, for example, who doesn't want to wear a winter coat or boots in 6 ft of snow... they have to look cool!

      35 years ago, it was very common for girls to wear dresses at the playground, now playgrounds are safer and a lot of little girls these days hate dresses.

      In your case, broach the topic of your concerns in a carefully crafted parenting letter where you can make him feel like he is in charge. In other words, "Hey Joe, I am wondering if you think it would be a good idea to have similar rules and structures in both our homes, I am wondering if you would like to meet with me in family mediation and develop a parenting plan?"

      He might say no and if that's the case, you have to be practical. So here are some rules:

      1) Do feel that you have a right to express concern about things that are happening with the kids under a former spouse's care.

      2) Do recognize that they have the same right during periods of time the kids are under your care.

      3) Do remember to ask yourself - "how relevant is this issue in the grand scheme of things?"

      4) Do remember that sometimes you can back down from a fight without losing a fight - everyone loses when conflict increases and you go back to court.

      5) Do compare your concerns about how something is impacting the kids with how accessing the family law system to address those concerns and how the increased conflict will impact the kids.

      6) Do learn how to communicate in a manner that places emphasis on "how the children benefit" versus "what I think you are doing wrong".

      There are a jillion other rules, but at the end of the day you are going to have to accept that there are some things you cannot change about your ex-spouse and his parenting style because you are two different people with two different sets of values.

      Comment


      • #33
        exactly these things are what parenting are - showing your kids what's not a good choice etc - but if they are offered the easier way of things - guess which way they are going to go and what happens when they get sick because of poor nutrican, having to go to the dentist etc.. There was a good question in "dear abbey" last week - a 12 year old girl wanting to shave her legs but her father said no because of the stepmom - her mom said yes and they have joint parenting - the girl is at wits. It may sound trivial but I remember as a young girl it was awful - I was so pale and very dark hair - Mediterranian background and I was quite young - so I had noticed my daughter all of a sudden not wanting to wear shorts - so I spoke to her doctor you said - if she notices then she's old enough to start shaving, waxing - whatever. Is this what they mean for the best of the child? Lets' face it - chances are that the parents could make 50/50 decisions while married why think it can happen now?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by baileybug
          What I'm wondering is, what is the rule of Thumb when it comes to picking your battles?

          The chili-dog story was very interesting. I feel caught in those kind of situations all the time. My ex's husband's answer for everything is that it won't kill them and they are with him, so it is none of my concern. (we 50/50 parent)

          What if he lets my daughter play about in skirts and dresses at school when she's climbing monkey bars and such? What if he lets them wear summer clothes with no coats in the winter because that's what they want to do? What if he lets them not brush their teeth at night because they don't want to? What if he lets my preschool daughter put on make-up for school? What if he lets them go for a couple of days without bathing them? None of these things will necessarily kill them, but are they appropriate? Are they worth fighting over. My kids get very confused and angry having to switch between the rules of the two homes. Especially since he appears to give into their demands much more often.

          Any thoughts on this subject would be appreciated.
          This kind of thing is such a common problem for all parents, and of course, moreso for separated/divorced parents... this is one of the reasons I don't advocate 50/50. Each parent has rights; great... for the parents. As you said, the kids get very confused and angry with the switching back and forth. I suppose in very rare cases, a 50/50 can work for some families, but OMG, you'd have to have two VERY committed and cooperative people (as well as any future spouses who'd enter the picture) and a very open and communicative relationship with the children. IMO, young kids just shouldn't be subjected to this kind of arrangement, simply because I don't think they are able to adequately sort out and express their feelings.

          Comment


          • #35
            And we should aspire to have appropriate programs and services to teach parents the value of working together as opposed to working against each other. I am in favour of shared parenting as an achievable goal but more often than not, parents express reasons why they aren't prepared to work together - those reasons generally put their interests ahead of their childrens.

            Comment


            • #36
              50/50 Parenting

              I also agree about seperating the hate on for each other is essential for this to work.
              I think personally, that 50/50 should be manditory from the start, making both parents equally responsible for the caring of the cild or children. Also, manditory counselling for both parents, individual and both at the sametime. This, to workout issue's and to make sure they are putting the childrens welfare before their issue's.
              I know it is not a perfect solution, but things have to change to involve non costodial parents, mainly fathers. Lets face it, fathers are concidered ineffective parents and more like familiar babysitters.

              Comment


              • #37
                Fathers face challenges that are specific to being a father and mothers face different challenges. There is a perception that it is unjust or unfair that women generally get primary care of the kids, however, one needs to look at what happens in most Canadian homes to recognize that in most cases, mothers are still the primary caregivers to the children. Every family is different of course, but this is a fact in most families - even where mom is working outside the home, she is still the primary caregiver.

                I see the argument that dads get the shaft as being more realistic if a father has been intimately involved in the primary care of the kids during the marriage and mom gets the kids because she is mom - but it begs the question - how do you prove someone was the primary caregiver? We assume it is women in most marriages, though there are statistics to back it up.

                Is mom more advantaged than dad if she gets custody? In some ways yes. Is dad more advantaged than mom if he is an NCP without custody but earns $100k/year because during the marriage, mom stayed home with the kids - absolutely.

                Emphasis should be placed on the RAISING of the kids versus "who gets the kids" but I don't live in a perfect world.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Divorcemanagement
                  Is mom more advantaged than dad if she gets custody? In some ways yes. Is dad more advantaged than mom if he is an NCP without custody but earns $100k/year because during the marriage, mom stayed home with the kids - absolutely.
                  Sean - I love reading what you write - you are so balanced and thoughtful - but this one statement irked me - not as a parent, but as a professional.

                  Odds are VERY good that Dad didn't get his $100k/annum job because someone stayed home with his kids. He got that job because he worked hard, is well-educated and earned promotions. I am sure having mom at home was a benefit to the children, and saved dollars in childcare expenses - but it also meant that family existed on one income. It's a pretty even trade, I think.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Workinthruit:

                    Sorry if that irked you. I made the statement to draw the parallel between the statement prior to it. I kind of look at advantage and disadvantage in a marriage as a two way street, and while someone who earns $100K/year through hard work, it can also be argued that if they had been at home raising kids, they would not have achieved the advancement - I hope that clarifies.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Divorcemanagement
                      Workinthruit:

                      Sorry if that irked you. I made the statement to draw the parallel between the statement prior to it. I kind of look at advantage and disadvantage in a marriage as a two way street, and while someone who earns $100K/year through hard work, it can also be argued that if they had been at home raising kids, they would not have achieved the advancement - I hope that clarifies.

                      I would doubt very highly that he made his way to 100 000 a year with kids without a lot of overtime, without a lot of help at home and had he needed to be home at 5 pm everynight he wouldn't have achieved that. At least in most professions. Hell even taking a year off in mat leave is often determental to peoples careers.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Gotcha. Advantage and disdvantage - God, I sometimes wish the architects of existing law would have come up with better terms.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I know this is beside Sean's point, but in some cases, spouse A will give up or put limitations on his/her career to relocate with spouse B (and the rest of the family) so that spouse B may further his/her career.

                          Just thought I would throw that in there

                          Lindsay

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Lindsay
                            I know this is beside Sean's point, but in some cases, spouse A will give up or put limitations on his/her career to relocate with spouse B (and the rest of the family) so that spouse B may further his/her career.

                            Just thought I would throw that in there

                            Lindsay
                            That is exactly the situation I am facing right now. I had given up quite a bit when I moved several times to further his career.

                            Comment

                            Our Divorce Forums
                            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                            Working...
                            X