Systemfailure, you head this post 50/50 shared parenting

I presumed it was to be about that but

You then go on to describe quite extraordinary circumstances which the majority of marriage breakdowns do not suffer.

I separated in 1993, in them days women had the whip hand and my ex used it with relish. She was forced dragging and screaming to make a settlement, threatened to take my daughters overseas and took 70% of our assets because she was female.

I got 30% assets and limited access to my daughters.

When we separated I rented a unit close to the matrimonial home and eventually bought another house about 300 meters away closer to the girls’ school.

Not because of what any law said, my daughters ended up spending half their time at my house, used to pop in in the morning on the way to school, same at night and thus we shared more than the allotted time which the agreement said.

What I can only assume is your criticsm of shared parenting are not typical. We each have a different tale to tell.

50/50 shared parenting is the right approach.

Children need a loving relationship with both parents wherever possible. It is fundamental to their general development and transition to becoming a functioning adult.

That some parents do not behave appropriately toward their children, as in the case of your ex, should not be used as a measure of how the rest of us behave.

PALE “A very very dangerous thing is give 50 50 unless each case is looked at long and hard.”

It is a more dangerous thing to presume one parent has superior rights to parenting simply because of gender.

I do not believe “paternalism” has any redeeming merit, I certainly do not believe “maternalism” has any either.

I agree with most of what PALEIF has written in that last post but make the point that 80/20 also often is influenced by property settlement and "free" money. Neither gender is immune to looking to their own future needs.

I doubt that many of those who insist that a father should not change his priorities following seperation to allow him to deal with changed circumstances would accept a situation where a mother was not allowed to take on more paid work or to start studying (both of which are likely to impact on care arrangements). Seperation and divorce does change patterns of care, in most cases children and fathers see each other every day where they share a house even if for short periods. Seeing each other every second weekend or less is a remarkably different care pattern.

The arrangements and priorities people make as a couple are often not the ones which suit or work for them when they are apart.

I'd like to find a way to take the winner takes it all aspect out of this so that money was not an issue for residency. The current system can and often does award the bulk of the property to the person holding residency at the time of the property settlement but has no practical means to address changes in residency which occur after the event. I'd be worried if it did because that might stop people changing to more workable arrangements. My impression is that over time once the settlement and the bitterness of the divorce process is out of the way kids often start getting to spend more time with the other parent.

I don't have answers which I'm entirely happy with for the property issue. No one answer seems to address the issues well.

R0bert

Robert said
I'd like to find a way to take the winner takes it all aspect out of this so that money was not an issue for residency.
pale- Ar Yes thats would be the answer for sure - but alas how.
Col.
No All I am saying is John is a very successful high flyer biz corp director that has provided well.
We are overall fond of him however- to be fair to the kids hes not much for organisaing children
I could tell you many amusing story of his failed attempts to do what mum has done all the kids lives - be there drop this one and that club and back fror another etc.
The shoe problem was very difficult for him- two houses. He solved that by buying two lots of everything.

While we have all fond it highly amusing one cant help think how stressful it must be for the kids on a daily basis.

We know both parents and when mum brings them horse riding and swiming at our property he kids are far happier because there not so much drama.

With Dad they are hard to control and little buggers because there is always so much confusion.

Mind you I know a Dad who does everything while mums out drinking with her friends.
like Robert said its hard to get it right and even harder for a judge to judge it on a half day sitting.
In ALL honesty I think johns four are better with Mum most of the time and see dad every second weekend which is more than they are used to anyway.

Hes determined shes not getting half of his three houses because hes cross she left.
Hes an awfully nice person just human. Hes angry.
So here he is determined to do the 50 parent thing.
Highly amuzing for those who know him but in all honesty a disaster for those little kids.
He even came here one with three kids in the car instead of four.

I've been thinking about the situation described earlier by PALEIF and it may be correct that that in this instance the mother is the more competent parent.

What sticks out though is that there is nothing about this situation which would suggest to me that if this was an intact family that the authorities would consider removing the children from the parents care. A family where both parents were not well organised with the kids, where both struggled to discipline them. We know those families exist and few would support removing children from those families because they might be better cared for by the family down the street who are better organised and better with discipline.

Why is that when a couple seperates we think things that are not significant enough for action in intact families are significant enough to warrant removal from single dads?

I get PALEIF's point that it appears that the property issue may be a big motivator and if that is the case it is sad but the authorities don't remove kids from parents because we don't like their motives.

We remove kids from parents when the childrens safety is shown to be at serious and ongoing risk, not because someone else can do the job better or is more pure of heart.

R0bert

Robert
Yes it is sad because Johns a top guy. He loves his kids but in all honesty he so angry at loosing control of his life he doesnt see the damage hes doing.
The kids have grown up with Dad being away a lot and Mums done a good job mostly with their manners to be honest.

Now the kids have worked out of course they are the center of attention big time.

Dads buying them everything they want before they have saved their share which mums always insisted on depite their wealth.

They are changing and have started to fight with friends that they grew up with and that sort of thing.

There is no easy answer and as you say each family is very different but I think kids should also not be sheltered from the facts of life. Mum and Dad broke up for example.

I talk to mum or dad on the phone everyday and I stay weekends with dad while i go to school from my same house like I always did.

Solves the shoe problem if nothing else.

Also if a woman has not take out a domestic ava order throughout the marriage then suddenly gets one it should be very very very carefully checked by the court.

Its the oldest trick in the book. Support me or you wont see the kids etc .
Support the kids and pay the rates etc but not support the wife it she can work without neglecting the kids - no

People are entiled to move on and second wives and their children often live in poverty while dads first Mrs bleeds him.

It happens that all I am saying.

John can afford it but many cant and really suffer.

I also know hes never going to get the hang of the 50 50 parenting thing as much as he loves his kids.

Its just not him. As amusing as his friends find John cooking dinner for the kids its really damaging them to be honest.

They used to be balanced and happy,

PALE: "As amusing as his friends find John cooking dinner for the kids its really damaging them to be honest.

They used to be balanced and happy"

I suspect they'll be balanced and happy again, too. The fact is that divorces are hard on kids as well as parents and there is a period of adjustment required. I was also denigrated as a parent by the mother, who claimed all sorts of dire consequences for my "disorganisation" as she put it, yet the Court eventually saw it my way. I've always maintained that her major motivation for the 6 years of hell she put me and the kids through was the funding she was able to claim to go back to Uni (for her third degree, no less) as a "single mother". Apparently the other two weren't sufficient for her to be able to find work... Once her degree was finished, magically so was her opposition to shared parenting. I doubt to this day that she would have acquiesced to shared care if I had not taken the step of refusing to pay her child support as long as she chose to withhold the children from me, so I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about the financial issues involved.

I do agree that not all situations are the same and that sometimes shared parenting is a failure for all sorts of reasons, but the short-term "disorganised" situation you describe should not be taken as indicative of the long-term interests or wishes of the children.