Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This whole "shared parenting" thing...

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

  • #16
    sheesh... I give up.

    Comment


    • #17
      Actually, as my children were being dragged out of the house, my children said neither daddy or mommy ... but Hubby! My wife was totally lost!

      Hubby

      Comment


      • #18
        I see both sides of this issue, I really do.

        If both parents can be reasonable and mature, and co-parent responsibly, the development of the children will reflect that.

        Children are by nature resilient - and malleable. Too many parents are vindictive and vicious, and seem to forget that popular phrase 'the best interests of the child'

        It's a crying shame, and anyone who can't admit it has their head planted so deep in the sand they may never see the light of day again.

        If you want 50/50 to work, it will. If you don't, it will not. If you are the type of parent who doesn't provide structure and direction for your children, and assure them that YOU will make the effort, and that this WILL work, then you will likely have unhappy, unsettled children.

        In the end, Dads are parents too, and any child who has a dad that wants 50/50 is a very lucky child.

        Comment


        • #19
          Yeah, children are resilient.. does that mean we should seek to put them through the wringer to make damn sure the parents' "rights" are covered? Let's just see how far we can screw with their heads and they still come out alright? No. I don't think so.

          For all the parents who are currently doing the 50/50 "split" of their children and hustling them back and forth from one household to the next 4-8 times per month, although I think they may well believe they're doing well, it's a bit premature to decide the whole process is a success, IMO. I'm in my early 30's, and only just since I've had kids have I really realized the impact some of the choices my parents made has had on me. I'm NOT one of those people who blames all their problems on their childhood; I think my parents were very dedicated and wonderful to myself and my brother. Now that I'm a parent, though, I've realized that there were a few things that maybe weren't the best choices. Things that were major parenting choices, and while I know they thought they were doing right, have had a long-term impact that my parents just didn't anticipate. So how can any of us KNOW that whatever we're doing is working well for our kids?

          What we DO know, is that kids NEED consistency and security. Oh sure, Mom and Dad can agree on rules from one house to the next, etc., but it's always a different life from one house to the next; we all know that, right? Hell, even looking back at my childhood, there was a different dynamic when just Mom was there, as opposed to Dad and Mom. We knew we could get away with crap for a lot longer with Mom, even though she expressed her frustration a lot more than Dad. With Dad, he just had to give us "the look", and we knew we were pushing it too far, and better knock it off. So what would it have been like if we'd had two different households to deal with? Particularily if we were back and forth like the ball on a ping pong table?

          Seems to me that if consistency and stability is a major need for children, then that's what we need to strive to provide them with. "Sharing" the kids on a 50/50 basis (or close to it), is all about the parents exercising THEIR "rights", IMO; not about the kids' right to security and stability.

          Think of it another way. For those of you whose parents were together throughout your childhood. You visited Grandma and Grandpa from time to time, right? Maybe even frequently. But if you were with your parents at your home from mon-wed, then at Grandma's from wed-sat, then back at your home sun-tues, then back at Grandma's..............................

          Doesn't seem to me to be a good way to create a solid foundation for security for children.

          Comment


          • #20
            Decent Dad, look at your statements here:

            Originally posted by Decent Dad
            I wonder how many parents are going to step forward and give up there 50% time...
            ...I think it is easy to say these schedules don't work as long as you are the one ending up with the child 90% of the time...
            Now tell me how those reflect a child-centered approach? How many parents will give up THEIR 50% of the time?? Easy to say this doesn't work if YOU'RE the one with 90% of the kids' time??

            Yeah, children have a right to both parents. And in a perfect world, children also have the right to a happy, "Leave it to Beaver" home. The trouble is that as divorcing parents, we've all failed to provide that, haven't we? This isn't a question of which spouse is at fault; at least, not for the kids. You think they give a damn whether Mommy did (blank) to screw up the marriage, or Daddy did (blank) to ruin things? Nope. They don't care who did what to whom.. all they know is that they have a broken family. So why the hell would parents think the best solution at that point is to have the kid run between two lives and houses several times a month?

            We KNOW that kids really NEED stability, security and routine. That's a given, right? So it seems to me that the only reason parents would actively choose to deliberately chop up a kiddo's home life into 'separate and equal' parts is if they're accomodating their own agenda over their childrens' best interests... and today's society says they're doing the right thing.

            After all, if it was just fine for kids to move from home to home, lifestyle to lifestyle, several times a month, why didn't your parents have Grandma and Grandpa raise you for 15 days of the month? What the hell.. they're not doing squat anyway, and they've got lots of experience.. why not?
            Last edited by sasha1; 04-27-2006, 03:45 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              This is a very good thread which presents the common arguements in favour of and against shared parenting.

              The common belief is that we should have a cookie cutter approach to determining the amount of time children spend with each parent once a divorce occurs. Right now, the paradigm is one of children living with their primary caregiver and every second weekend access to the other parent.

              Naturally, there is a financial incentive to maintaining primary care. Naturally there is a financial incentive to getting shared parenting. Naturally there is a view that one parent's rights are being stomped on by the system. Naturally, there is an assertion that kids are going to be bounced around.

              So let's examine the bounced around part. The last time I looked, children these days in an intact family are still fairly bounced around between school, daycare, extracurricular activities, play dates and programs/services for children. They spend large parts of their evenings being shuttled about town in a minivan two or three times a week. Is this negatively impacting them? Beats me. We assume it isn't because they are coming home to a home where both parents live.

              If the primary concern is one of the kids being bounced around - are the children bounced around in a shared parenting arrangement where both parents live 5 minutes from each other?

              Again, beats me - do we need a study to tell us what's happening or can we look for cues in our children to determine whether there is a problem. Moreover, when we are looking at those cues, are we as divorced parents objective enough to respond to those cues in a child-centred fashion or are we going to think about what we want verus how to support our kids?

              Look, shared parenting assumes a lot of function exists between mom and dad. In my experience, fathers who want shared parenting want it right bloody now because it is their "right". Mothers who oppose shared parenting oppose it right bloody now because they feel they have a divine right to be in charge of the kids. Classic examples of parents putting their interests ahead of the children's interests. So what's the happy medium that both positional parents can live with?

              How about making a parenting plan where you can incrementally increase time to shared parenting over, say a year, and during that year, the plan has mechanisms in place (like implementing the plan under the auspices of a child psychologist) that will allow both parents to solve any problem areas that might arise enroute to shared parenting.

              Is that the happy medium? Can both parents who dislike each other live with it?

              I await reading further postings on this thread.

              Comment


              • #22
                Shaun, you really are the voice of reason. I'm not sure why a parent should have to wait and gradually acquire time with his child as you suggest. On the other hand I do understand this if one parent is being reintroduced after an absence.

                If after seperation the mom feels she has the "right" to decide access I feel this is wrong. Yes during seperation both sides may feel the other are incompetent. No doubt my ex used every excuse to claim I was not fit for 50/50 custody, I felt the same about her having full custody. Why is it so often the Mom's expect full custody and fathers simply want to share??? Could not be the money & control could it? Nah not possible Fathers don't know how to parent properly, yeah that must be it.

                All too often Mothers feel they have the right to decide, all too often fathers are not educated enough to realize they do not have to be dictated to on this issue.

                How would people feel if the Mother had to gradually work to acquire time to gain access and "prove" they are worthy to have time with thier own children after divorce. Oh my God this would certainly not be acceptable would it, why so for Fathers.

                Comment


                • #23
                  bravo!

                  like I said, dads are parents too.

                  btw - I am a mom.
                  Seperated 7 years.
                  Dad didn't want shared custody until a couple of months ago. After 7 years, I happily suggested a routine that would transition us all into an even split of time.
                  Do I want to, NO.
                  Do I feel these are MY kids, and I have always made decisions, and I am best at it? YES.
                  But, my kids have a right to be raised by two parents. PERIOD.
                  I do not have the right to take that away from them beause I selfishly think I am the better parent. Nor do I have that right because I want to punish him. And in the end, that's what this is about. Punishing Dads. Moms thinking they are the superior parents.
                  This entire system is set-up to punish men. And women who perpetuate it should be ashamed of themselves. Unless your child is in danger, you have no good reason to hold them back from having an equal relationship with both of you.
                  It's a shame that fathers ever have to fight for rights. A crying shame.
                  I am fortunate enough to be in a relationship now with a partner who is a terrific dad - who has his children almost 50/50 (as close as possible) but it's a fight every time his ex files a new motion - always for money, always with the threat of moving, or taking time away - and it's sickening that that has to be a real fear.
                  Being a good parent always means making sacrifices - and if sacrificing time with my child is something I have to do, I am willing to do it.
                  In the end, I am confident they will thank me. I sincerely doubt children who were used as pawns in a money grab are ever going to thank the parent who did that to them.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Frankly, I think if parents choose to try to do the 50/50 thing, Sean's graduated approach would be a good transitional step for the kids and the parents. And certainly for those who live in the same neighborhood and cooperate with one another, or those parents attempting the 'nesting' thing, that's gotta be better than the abrupt, "Hey, look at that; now you've got 2 houses, kiddo" approach. I still have to wonder if it's not more damaging for the child than having one "primary" home, and liberal access to the other parent (where appropriate), but then again, that's just my opinion. Obviously, none of us have raised several generations of kids through divorce, trying out all the various alternatives, and as such, have the experience and knowledge to have anything more than just our personal opinions on the subject, right? Add to that, that we all have our own personal storylines and the consequential wounds to show for them, and you've got the makings of a good scrap!

                    Originally posted by today
                    I'm not sure why a parent should have to wait and gradually acquire time with his child as you suggest.
                    Once again, it's not about the parent, ok? It's about the child. If it's best for the child involved that access be graduated, that's what both parents should want. Not every situation calls for that need, but some do.

                    Bottom line here, there are no black and whites in this. That's where I find I get very frustrated; when people seem to only see things from one particular perspective that pertains to their particular situation, and then judge everyone else by that perspective. That kind of thinking doesn't inspire any change, so what is the point?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Just as in fully functional marriages, there is no perfect way to raise kids and there is also no cookie cutter approach. Some kids spend most of their time in a daycare, some kids spend most of their time being raised by grandparents, some times kids come home to a traditional arrangement and sometimes both parents are just lousy parents and let the Internet or video games raise their kids for them.

                      If there is anything good to be found in disputes over custody and access, it's that these disputes can force parents to re-evaluate how they view their role as a parent. In some cases they can become far better parents, in other cases, their lives are poisoned because they can't separate their issues with a former spouse from the need to support their kids.

                      Most men that I have worked with report that they would have loved to be intimately involved in the primary functions of child care to the same extent as their wives during the marriage, but when they did try to become intimately involved, mom told them they were doing it wrong or worse, mom took dad's desire for an increased parenting role personally and felt that it threatened her view of what parenting should be. I have long believed that one of the reasons that men defer primary care of the children to their wives is to keep the peace in the matrimonial home. It's not the primary reason, but it's a reason nonetheless.

                      So this brings me to the Great Canadian Chili Dog incident. I am mentioning this incident to highlight the differences of opinion that exist between men and women in terms of what each gender may feel is in the best interest of the kids.

                      Once upon a time there was a moderate conflict divorced mom and dad where dad had the kids every second Thursday to Sunday. Mom and dad communicated parenting issues via email - rarely met in person to discuss things. During the kid's parenting time with Dad, on Friday mornings the kids would have chili dogs for breakfast.

                      This drove mom nuts. Drove her insane.

                      "Kids need a healthy balanced meal!" "The shouldn't have chili dogs for breakfast at your house on Friday mornings!!!"

                      Well, dad took great offence to this. Sent a letter to mom saying that the kids like Chili Dogs for breakfast and at least they are going to school on a Friday morning with a full belly.

                      Mom hyperfocused on the Chili Dogs. To the point where she instructed her lawyer to send a letter to dad's lawyer telling him that she had primary care and that as the primary caregiver, she was demanding that Chili Dogs are removed from the menu on Friday mornings at dad's house.

                      Dad's lawyer sent a letter back telling mom's lawyer to pound salt.

                      A notice of motion was made by mom to vary the access to every second weekend because dad was feeding the kids Chili Dogs for breakfast and "if they are eating Chili Dogs for Breakfast, it calls into question what other inappropriate things dad might be doing during periods of time the kids are under his care".

                      It went to court. Mom had a ten page Affidavit stating that dad is a moron and dad's responding Affidavit said that mom needs to settle down and let dad define his role as a father for himself.

                      Guess what the judge decided?

                      He increased dad's access by one day.

                      Mom was beside herself. Justice wasn't done! Yadda yadda yadda...

                      Was the judge a fan of Chili Dogs? Nope. Was the judge biased against mom? Nope!

                      The judge looked at this case and probably said to himself/herself "Jesus H. Christ... this woman is nuts... it's a friggin Chili Dog".

                      The moral of the story is that we cannot impart our own belief system on a former spouse so we have to pick our battles and not take everything personally. In other words:

                      a) How relevant are Chili Dogs for breakfast to the best interest of the kids?
                      b) Is this about Chili Dogs or someone needing to be in charge for the sake of being in charge.
                      c) Are the kids suffering, failing at school, alienated from friends, depressed and falling apart because they are eating Chili Dogs for breakfast? Nope.
                      d) Judge says to himself/herself - why is this in my court room today?

                      Some parents give their kids chili dogs for breakfast. Some give them bacon and eggs and many parents send their kids to school with a bag of chips and a coke. There is no perfect way to raise kids so focus on what you are doing during periods of time that the kids are under your care and leave it at that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by sasha1
                        Once again, it's not about the parent, ok? It's about the child. If it's best for the child involved that access be graduated, that's what both parents should want. Not every situation calls for that need, but some do.

                        EXACTLY!!!!

                        It is almost always best for kids to have both parents involved in their lives( some rare cases where really it is best for the parent to just get out- but those are rare- we are talking incredibley bad, abusive etc parents) But that doesn't always mean back and forth and their lives incredibly disruptive.

                        Think about your childhood.... What do you remember- I bet it is the small things that actually were really important - like playing with the kids in your neighbourhood- your peer group at school etc, the ability to just go out and play - having the feeling of security etc. And Decent dad - you mentioned that "And being close together is ideal - but not always a factor." It is an incredibley important thing... having kids have to have 2 sets of friends - if they are lucky enough to make them at the second neighbourhood at all- would really make that kids life pretty tough. I would bet that would influence the kid not wanting to spend as much time with the other parent more then the other parent influencing the kid imo.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I read a case that had the "nesting" concept. If I think of the name, I will post a link. Basically the matrimonial home was retained as the home of the children. Both parents shuffled into the home when it was their time for the children to be under their care and control.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            As I said earlier, this is a very interesting thread - so I thought I would like to see what contributors have to say to the following scenario:

                            What would happen if an amendment to the Divorce Act emerged that actually enshrined a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 and the kids are now living in a 50/50 situation, and suddenly the kids now come forward and say, "look dad, I love you and all of that stuff, but this 50/50 thing isn't working so I really would like to stay at mom's house and see you maybe every second Thursday to Sunday?"

                            What happens next?

                            Alternatively, what happens if the kids say the same thing to mom?

                            How do you address it? What do you do?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              50/50 Parenting

                              I agree with 50/50 Parenting as it helps both parents remain parents. As of right now, I get to see my children Fourty eight days per year and one evening a week for 3-4 hours. All in all, about 60 days per year. I feel like an Uncle, not a Father.
                              I have read some studies on 50/50 parenting in the States and most have found that it is benificial for the children when both parents are involved in their lives equally. Another study out say's that the daughters in divorced families have a greater chance of developing Depression when the father is not involved or involved on a small basis.
                              As long as both parents are consistant in their approch to raising their kids, it really works.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Getting them to separate their dislike of each other from the child's right to be raised by mom and dad is the much larger challenge.

                                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